Service-Learning: An Interpretive case study of Teachers ...
Transcript of Service-Learning: An Interpretive case study of Teachers ...
University of South Carolina University of South Carolina
Scholar Commons Scholar Commons
Theses and Dissertations
2017
Service-Learning: An Interpretive case study of Teachers’ Service-Learning: An Interpretive case study of Teachers’
Perspectives and Planning Strategies Perspectives and Planning Strategies
Cory Susanne Miller University of South Carolina
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd
Part of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Miller, C.(2017). Service-Learning: An Interpretive case study of Teachers’ Perspectives and Planning Strategies. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/4435
This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you by Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected].
SERVICE-LEARNING: AN INTERPRETIVE CASE STUDY OF TEACHERS’ PERSPECTIVES AND
PLANNING STRATEGIES
By
Cory Susanne Miller
Bachelor of Science
The University of Connecticut, 2005
Master of Arts
The University of Connecticut, 2006
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in
Teaching and Learning
College of Education
University of South Carolina
2017
Accepted by:
Nathan Carnes, Major Professor
Christine Lotter, Committee Member
George Roy, Committee Member
Bethany Bell, Committee Member
Cheryl L. Addy, Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School
ii
© Copyright by Cory Susanne Miller, 2017
All Rights Reserved.
iii
DEDICATION
First, I would like to dedicate this dissertation to all the teachers whom with I
have worked side by side over the past ten years. They have taught me so much about
how to be the educator I’ve always dreamed I could be. Most importantly, I’d like to
dedicate this dissertation to Mrs. Elizabeth Manning, Mrs. Elizabeth Kauffman, Mr.
Bobby Hemingway, and Ms. Lauren Stalcup. These four teachers have fully supported
my efforts to teach my students according to my own teaching philosophies, and never let
me give up on that philosophy. They have inspired me to further my education and
pursue this degree.
Finally, this dissertation is also dedicated to Katie Stagliano, founder of Katie’s
Krops, and her mom Stacy. Not only have they let me join their efforts as a volunteer in
their organization, they have been my family in times when I needed family the most. I
thank them for their love and support throughout my journey.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge those who have made this dissertation possible.
First, and foremost, I would like to acknowledge my family for always showing their
support. I would like to thank my mom and sister for providing encouragement and
support in everything I do. I am grateful to my husband, for allowing me to take the time
to pursue this dream and for always being a sounding board when I needed it.
I would like to thank Dr. Nathan Carnes for taking a chance on me and taking me
on as a doctoral student. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Christine Lotter on whom
I could always count to answer questions when I needed it. I thank her for providing me
with so many opportunities during my time at USC. I will forever be grateful.
v
ABSTRACT
This interpretive case study focused on elementary teachers who were
implementing a service-learning project in their classroom. Research suggests that
service-learning is beneficial for students and is becoming more prevalent in high schools
and universities. Current literature, however, provides little evidence for the use of
service-learning at the elementary level. The purpose of this study was to explore and
gain insight in to how elementary school teachers use service learning and to examine
underlying factors that shape and influence how teachers plan for and implement service
learning projects. This study aims to provide a planning model to support elementary
teachers implementing future service-learning projects. Four third grade teachers at a
southeastern suburban elementary school participated in the study. Data were generated
through interviews, focus groups, and observations. Data showed that these teachers did
not use the same planning strategies for service-learning that they used in planning for
academic standards. Teachers had negative perceptions of SL as a strategy because they
did not have time to plan, felt too much pressure to accomplish other obligations such as
standardized instruction, or they did not have the pedagogical or content knowledge
necessary to be successful. This study suggests that teachers need to plan for an
emergent curriculum when implementing a SL project, but further research and
professional development are necessary to develop a planning model.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication .......................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iv
Abstract ................................................................................................................................v
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... vii
List of Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... viii
Chapter One Introduction………………………………………………………………....1
Chapter Two Literature Review ..........................................................................................8
Chapter Three Research Design and Methods ..………………………………………… 35
Chapter Four Research Findings…………………………………...…………………… 55
Chapter Five Discussion of Findings ................................................................................ 86
References ........................................................................................................................117
Appendix A: Questions for Katie’s Krops Applicants ....................................................128
Appendix B: Participant Letter ........................................................................................130
Appendix C: Interview Protocol – Initial Interview .......................................................131
Appendix D: Interview Protocol 2-4................................................................................133
Appendix E: Timeline of study ........................................................................................134
Appendix F: Planning Meeting Agenda Template ..........................................................135
Appendix G: Planning Meeting Agenda 12/6/2016.........................................................136
Appendix H: Planning Meeting Agenda 4/18/2017.........................................................139
Appendix I: Planning Meeting Agenda 5/9/2017 ............................................................142
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1. Image of Sandmann, Kiely, and Grenier (2009) service-learning program
planning model (SLPPM) ..................................................................................................27
Figure 2.2. Image of Whitley and Walsh (2014) service-learning framework. .................28
Figure 4.1. Image of garden built in March 2016 ..............................................................64
Figure 4.2. Image of garden rebuild in November 2017....................................................70
Figure 5.1. Image of Sandmann, Kiely, and Grenier (2009) service-learning program
planning model (SLPPM) ................................................................................................102
Figure 5.2. Proposed Elementary Planning Model ..........................................................103
viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
EDI ...............................................................................................Explicit Direct Instruction
GBL................................................................................................. Garden-Based Learning
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
This dissertation is a report of an interpretive case study on the planning and
implementation of a service-learning project (SL). The study was primarily based on
interviews and observations of third grade teachers in a suburban school district who
were conducting a service-learning project in their classroom. The service-learning
project included managing a garden and donating harvested crops to families in need in
the community. This first chapter introduces the background of the study, states the
problem and describes the significance of the study.
Background of the Study
Service-learning is becoming a widely documented teaching strategy at the high
school and college levels, but literature is lacking at the elementary level. Empirical
studies focused on higher education are the majority; a meta-analysis found that 68% of
studies before 2008 focused on college undergraduates. Disagreements about the
definition of service learning continue in the literature because there is a “division of
opinion in the field regarding whether service-learning is a philosophy of education, a
curricular tool, or a program design” (Billig, 2000). Researchers try to distinguish
service-learning from volunteer and community service, internships, or peer tutoring,
which can lead to discrepancies in a definition. Although a universal definition is
lacking, most include connecting service to academic curriculum, and/or the use of
2
reflection in the learning process, and/or teaching civic responsibility and strengthening
communities (Eyler & Giles, 1999).
Studies suggest that students benefit from participating in service-learning
experiences in the classroom (Killen & Turiel, 1998, Eyler & Giles 1999, Scales, 2000,
Celio, Durlak, & Dymnicki, 2011, Ponder, Vander Veldt & Lewis-Ferrell, 2011). These
benefits include increasing empathy for others, increasing community engagement,
academic success, increasing self-esteem, among others. To be beneficial, the National
Youth Leadership Council developed the essential elements for effective service learning
programs in 1998. Elements necessary for successful service-learning programs include
reflection, linking programs to academic standards, incorporating youth voice, and
involving community partners (Celio, Durlak, & Dymnicki, 2011).
Although there is an extensive amount of literature on the benefits of service-
learning for adolescents and young adults, literature is sparse on the effects of service-
learning for elementary or pre-adolescent students. In a meta-analysis, Celio, Durlak, and
Dymnicki (2011) examined 62 studies and only three focused on elementary aged
students. Wang, Greathouse & Falcinella (1997) studied the self-esteem of 187
elementary and secondary students participating in a serice-learning program. They had
students participate in an inventory measuring their self-esteem prior to and after the
program. They found that the results at the elementary level were less effective and
suggested service-learning should be advocated more enthusiastically at the secondary
level rather than elementary. In 1999, Drake Dones studied third and fourth graders
participating in service-learning projects. She found that fourth graders scored higher,
though not statistically significant, than the control group in their sense of community as
3
well as their self-efficacy beliefs regarding their ability to influence the community.
Additionally, Larkin and Mahoney (2006) surveyed sixth graders attending an elementary
school to assess the positive development of students participating in a youth service
program. Data were self-reported by students, but suggested that students who
participated in a service-learning program showed increases in empathy and a sense of
empowerment. Finally, Soslau and Yost (2007) specifically focused their study on urban
fifth graders. Based on data collected from school resources and surveys, they found that
students in service-learning programs were absent and suspended less. They also found
that these students did show more eagerness to learn the content. These four studies were
the only studies found focusing on the elementary level, and are further discussed in
chapter two. This study focused on the elementary school classroom to provide further
literature.
Also, elementary teachers are not the focus of the studies found. The studies
reviewed focus on student outcomes, and if teachers are the focus it is pre-service
teachers participating in service-learning as a student in teacher preparation courses. This
study focuses on in-service teachers of various experience levels because we need to
understand teachers’ understanding and perspectives to ensure they can be successful
implementing service-learning. These studies are explored in depth further in chapter 2.
Instructional planning is an important component of any new teaching strategy.
Elementary school teachers need to plan each part of their school day to ensure that
students are engaged and learning. Literature focused on instructional planning strategies
is widespread, but most studies suggest that teachers plan using teacher manuals and
scripted resources (McCutcheon, 1980; Sardo-Brown, 1990; Kagan & Tippins, 1992;
4
Oguz & Bayindir, 2009). They find instructional activities that will fill up time in the
classroom from these resources given to them by the school or district (Koeller &
Thompson, 1980; Zahorik, 1975). Service-learning curriculum does not always offer
teacher manuals or other resources, so teachers have to develop curriculum on their own.
This study focuses on the instructional planning strategies teachers use to implement
service-learning in their classrooms to learn how they can be better supported by
administration.
Finally, the garden-based learning (GBL) component of this study is the avenue
that the service-learning and academic standards are presented to the students. In this
study, the students and teachers are implementing a service-learning project as grantee
winners from the non-profit organization entitled Katie’s Krops. Katie’s Krops provides
funds to kids around the country for them to build and maintain a garden in their
community. All the crops harvested are donated to families in need within the
community. Katie’s Krops began in 2008, when Katie Stagliano brought home a cabbage
seedling from school. She planted that seedling in her backyard and watched it grow into
a 40-pound cabbage. Katie donated that cabbage to a food kitchen where it fed 275
people in her community. It was then that Katie’s Krops blossomed and she started an
entire garden to feed many more people in her community. As of today, Katie’s Krops
sponsors 100 gardens nationwide, and awards up to 20 more grants each year. For more
information on this organization, visit www.katieskrops.com. I was Katie’s sixth grade
science teacher and volunteered with her organization for several years before pursuing
my degree. As a volunteer, I helped Katie fund three other gardens in the same school
district this study takes place. All three of these schools struggled to meet grantee
5
expectations and successfully maintain their gardens. Although the organization
attempted to reach those teachers, it was difficult for Katie’s Krops to receive responses
from them. It was these experiences that led to my questioning of teacher practices when
implementing a service-learning project.
As recipients of the grant, teachers will work with students to build, plant,
maintain, and harvest the garden. While doing so, teachers should use the garden as a
curriculum tool to incorporate academic standards. Although, GBL is not the focus of
this study, it is the context in which service-learning is implemented and current research
is discussed in chapter two.
Statement of the Problem
Service-learning is a recent trend in academic settings. Most research in service
learning focuses on students at the high school or university levels (i.e. Astin,
Vogelgesang, Ikeda & Yee, 2000; Davis, 2013; Eyler, 2000; Gardner & Baron, 1999;
Hurd, 2006; Markus, Howard, & King, 1993; McKenna & Rizzo, 1999; Morgan & Streb,
2001; Steinke & Buresh, 2002; Weisskirch, 2003), but many elementary and middle
schools are now implementing this practice. Exploration for studies related to service-
learning in the elementary setting is discussed in chapter 2. Teaching practices and
strategies as the elementary level are usually different than high school and college
levels. Elementary teachers’ planning is usually influenced by teacher editions and
curriculum guides (McCutcheon, 1980; Kagan & Tippins, 1992; Oguz & Bayindir,
2009). In service-learning projects there are no teacher editions, and teachers are not
necessarily guided by script or district plans. The purpose of this study was to explore
and gain insight into how elementary school teachers use service learning and to examine
6
underlying factors that shape and influence how teachers plan for and implement service
learning projects. This study helped me to understand the meaning of the events,
situations, experiences and actions that teachers are engaged in while implementing a
service learning project in their classroom.
Research Questions
Based on the background of the study and problem statement, two research
questions were developed for this study.
1. How does elementary teachers’ instructional planning influence their
understanding and implementation of service learning?
2. How are elementary teachers’ perceptions and implementation of service-
learning influenced during the use of a garden based program in the
classroom?
Significance of the Study
This study aims to add to current literature in service-learning at the elementary
level. For teachers to buy in to the ideas that service-learning is beneficial and should be
implemented, they must perceive it as a positive addition to their workload. Teachers
also need to be provided support in their planning and implementation. This study’s
purpose is to gain insight into elementary teachers’ current perceptions and planning
strategies. By gaining insight we can develop a planning model for service-learning and
provide professional development opportunities for elementary teachers who are
implementing service-learning in the classroom.
Katie’s Krops is a growing organization and has grown from one garden to 100
gardens in 30 different states. All gardens are maintained by children aged 9-16.
7
Although most gardens are located at the homes of grant recipients, the Katie’s Krops
experience has promise as a potential service-learning opportunity for many schools. the
organization already has evidence of service-learning benefits for students, but this study
focuses on the teachers who are implementing the projects. If this organization can
understand the teacher perspectives and the curriculum constraints under which they
work, the staff can begin to work on adding Katie’s Krops to more schools across the
country.
8
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this study is to explore and gain insight into how elementary
school teachers use service learning and to examine underlying factors that shape and
influence how teachers plan for and implement service learning projects. This study will
provide some insight into the meaning of the events, situations, experiences and actions
that teachers are engaged in while implementing a service learning project in their
classroom. This study will add to current research by focusing on elementary school and
teacher perspectives. I hope to provide insight into instructional planning strategies for
service-learning. Based on this goal, two research questions have been developed.
1. How does elementary teachers’ instructional planning influence their
understanding and implementation of service learning?
2. How are elementary teachers’ perceptions and implementation of service-
learning influenced during the use of a garden based program in the
classroom?
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for this study is grounded in social constructivism.
Social constructivist theories are influenced highly by the research of Vygotsky.
Vygotsky (1978) focused on the influence of social interaction on cognitive development.
He claimed that an individual’s development cannot be independent from the
9
environment in which he or she is situated (C. Anderson, 2007). Learning is complex
and unpredictable, and is developed through interactions among students and their peers
as well as students and their teachers (Collins & Clarke, 2008).
Brown, Collins and Duguid (1989) suggest that cognition also cannot be
independent of the environment or situation in which one learns. Activities and situations
are necessary parts of learning and cognition, and we should “embed learning in activity
and make deliberate use of the social and physical context” (p. 32). Choi and Hannafin
(1995) explain that understanding cannot be separated from the context in which it
occurs, and emphasize the importance of learning in real-life contexts. They suggest that
knowledge is acquired by embedding the concepts in authentic experiences and by
creating the opportunity for the learner to interact in the context of real life situations.
Situated cognition and social constructivism both influenced the development of the
Reggio philosophy that is labeled as emergent curriculum.
Emergent curriculum is a practice that has emerged from early childhood
education, specifically the Reggio Emilia approach (Jones, 2012). This practice is
evident where the “eventual curriculum that the teacher oversees in not prescribed but co-
evolves during the process of engaging with the learners in the classroom” (Collins &
Clarke, 2008, p. 1010). This thought challenges the evolvement of standardized
education. The tightly structured learning environments and standards are lacking the
complexity that is necessary to foster creativity, exploration and discovery (Collins &
Clarke, 2008). Rinaldi (1993) believes that “the potential of children is stunted when the
endpoint of their learning is formulated in advance” (p. 104). Emergent curriculum
focuses on the processes of learning and is naturally individualized as it is co-constructed
10
by teachers, students, and the environment itself. The classroom activities influence and
develop the curriculum objectives rather than the curriculum objectives predetermining
the classroom activities (Jones, 2012).
Because there are no planning models or teacher editions for service-learning
projects, the curriculum must emerge through the interactions with students and the
environment. Gardening, just like learning, is unpredictable and the curriculum for each
project and classroom may have some slight differences.
This literature review focuses on research on service-learning, instructional
planning, and although it is not the focus of the study, I will conclude with discussing
garden-based learning to show the literature surrounding the medium the teacher
participants use to implement their service-learning project.
Service – Learning
This section begins with a discussion of several recommended practices for
implementing effective service-learning programs leading to a concrete definition of
service-learning to be used in this study. Then it will explore the empirical studies that
provide evidence to support the beneficial nature of service-learning for students, as well
as some limitations of these studies. This discussion will include benefits for students at
all levels, as there are limited studies focused on elementary students. Finally, this
section will discuss literature that focuses on elementary school teachers.
Elements of Service-Learning and Definition
The National Youth Leadership Council developed the essential elements for
effective service learning programs in 1998. It is important to add that the practices
discussed were chosen based on the research available for each element. In most studies,
11
it was highly important that student reflection was included in the program. Based on the
experiential learning theory, learning occurs through repeated cycles of action and
reflection (Kolb, 1984). Reflection has become an integral part of service-learning and
considered the most essential for the success of a program (Celio, Durlak, and Dymnicki,
2011). Reflection or “reflective observation” is necessary for learning (Kolb, 1984).
Kolb (1984) defines reflection as an exercise to understand and conceptualize the
experience. Dewey (1997) believes reflection to involve understanding by observing
problems and then testing various solutions.
Experience alone is not sufficient for learning, and reflection is necessary because
it enables learners to gain the most benefit from the experience. According to Eyler and
Giles (1999), students who were engaged in highly reflective service-learning
experiences were more likely to develop a deeper understanding of global situations and
issues. Reflection leads to the conceptualization of abstract ideas so that future success in
similar situations is possible (Dewey, 1997; Kolb, 1984). In service-learning, reflection
is important as students need to be able to evaluate information and controversial
perspectives to make decisions for action. Sometimes the action they decide to take will
need to be modified in the future. “Service-learning provides the opportunity for
students’ assumptions about particular social problems and community issues to be
challenged through experience” (Eyler, 2002, p. 522). Reflection on these experiences
may be what promotes cognitive development in students (Eyler, 2002).
Other components that are considered essential for effective service learning are:
linking programs to academic standards, incorporating youth voice, and involving
community partners. According to a meta-analysis of sixty-two service-learning
12
programs, those that used three or four of the recommended practices had a significantly
higher effect size than programs that did not use any (Celio, Durlak, and Dymnicki,
2011). Studies show that explicitly linking service-learning to academic objectives
results in an increase in problem solving skills and other improved learning outcomes
(Conrad and Hedin, 1982). Also, students who are given the opportunity to choose the
issues to address within their service-learning programs have higher chances of
developing positive outcomes (Billig, Root, and Jesse, 2005). According to data
collected from service-learning educators, student leadership was critical to the success of
the project (Ponder, Vander Veldt & Lewis, 2011). In a study conducted by Morgan and
Streb (2001), it was suggested that having a voice helped to develop citizenship in
students. Those students who reported they had a voice in the project also had higher
scores in self-efficacy, political engagement, and attitudes towards out-groups. Finally,
programs that have community partners are more likely to have positive impacts on both
students and the community (Ponder, Vander Veldt & Lewis, 2011).
Although there are many empirical studies on elements of service-learning, there
is a lack of a universal definition of service-learning (Eyler and Giles, 1999). Because of
a lack of a definition, there is much debate on the difference between community service
and service-learning, and whether outcomes differ for students participating in the
experiences (Astin, Vogelgesang, Ikeda, and Yee, 2000). Without the connection to
academic curriculum and reflection, experiences would be considered community
service. Most definitions of service-learning include connecting service to academic
curriculum, and/or the use of reflection in the learning process, and/or teaching civic
responsibility and strengthening communities (Eyler & Giles, 1999). “Differences in
13
definition reflect a division of opinion in the field regarding whether service-learning is a
philosophy of education, a curricular tool, or a program design” (Billig, 2000, p. 659).
It is important to establish a working definition for service-learning that will be
used in this paper. For this study, the definition of service-learning has been adapted
from Eyler and Giles (1999) as well as Kielsmeier et al. (2004). Service-learning is an
experiential education method that integrates the academic curriculum with project-based
learning while students are also working to accomplish real change in the community.
Experiential education is defined by behaviorist David Kolb. He states that
learning is “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of
experience” (1984). Experiential learning also suggests that learning should be defined
with an emphasis on the process of adaptation and not defined in terms of outcomes. It is
suggested that when one learns through direct experience, one learns faster, the
knowledge is retained longer, and the appreciation is greater (Sharp, 1948). As the
definition of service-learning includes project-based learning, it is important to also
define this strategy. Project-based learning is an approach that engages students in
investigating a real-life problem and working collaboratively to develop a plan that
addresses the problem (Krajcik et al., 1994). Combining these two theories of
pedagogical practices into a service-learning program allows students to achieve deeper
understanding of content and develop life skills (Kielsmeier, 2004).
Benefits of Service-Learning
Research suggests that service-learning is beneficial for students for a variety of
reasons. Service-learning programs have shown positive outcomes in areas such as civic
responsibilities, attitudes and beliefs towards school and learning, academic success, and
14
social and emotional development. The following section reviews studies focusing on all
academic levels because only five studies were found in my search focusing on
elementary students. In my literature exploration using the ERIC database, I searched
using the terms “service-learning” to start; this resulted in 21,114 articles. To narrow the
search for empirical studies focusing on elementary level students, I used a variety of
terms including “pre-adolescent,” “elementary school,” and “primary level.” This
narrowing of the search resulted in 1,131 articles. However, only five articles focused on
service-learning implemented in elementary classrooms. Most articles in this search were
focused on the benefits of service-learning on university students whose service-learning
experience involved tutoring or other interactions with elementary students or elementary
teacher candidates (Barnes, 2016; Chien, 2017; Cone, 2009; Eppler, Ironsmith, Dingle, &
Errickson, 2011; Tinkler, Hannah, Tinkler, & Miller, 2015; Wall, 2017; Wilson,
Bradbury & McGlasson, 2015). This lack of literature and the empirical evidence show
that there is a need for further research on service-learning implementation at the
elementary level.
Elementary students. At the elementary level, Wang, Greathouse & Falcinella
(1997) studied the self-esteem of 187 elementary and secondary students participating in
a service-learning program. Students participated in an inventory measuring their self-
esteem prior to and after the program. They found that the results at the elementary level
were less effective and suggested service-learning should be advocated more
enthusiastically at the secondary level rather than elementary. This study is the only one
found that suggested service-learning may not be beneficial for elementary students
because of their developmental level. However, there was no explanation of the specific
15
format of the programs implemented at each level. Perhaps program differences
influenced the outcomes.
In 1999, Dones studied third and fourth graders participating in service-learning
projects. She found that fourth graders scored higher, though not statistically significant,
than the control group in their sense of community as well as their self-efficacy beliefs
regarding their ability to influence the community. This study suggested that service-
learning was beneficial more for fourth graders than third graders. The explanation for
this outcome included developmental level of students and the amount of meaningful
reflection students could contribute (Dones, 1999).
Lakin and Mahoney (2006) conducted a study with sixth graders. It is important
to note, that these students may only be considered at the elementary level because the
study site was the elementary school in the district. Sixth graders may also be considered
young adolescents, meaning that there may only be three studies found involving true
elementary students. In this study, sixth graders were assigned to experimental and
control groups. The experimental group participated in the service-learning program and
the control group did not. Based on self-reported data in a pre- and post-survey, it was
suggested that participation in a service-learning program can lead to positive
development of students, including their empathy of others and personal sense of
empowerment. This study focused on younger students, but did not involve students at
the true elementary level.
Soslau and Yost (2007) specifically focused their study on urban fifth graders.
Within their study they had one control group who received traditional lessons and an
experimental group who received traditional lessons integrated with service-learning.
16
Through data collected from journal entries, benchmark test scores, and attendance
records, they found that students in the experimental group were absent less and were
suspended less. They also found that the experimental group did show more eagerness to
learn the content and they showed great enthusiasm about their service-learning project.
This increase in motivation may also account for the stronger academic growth they
measured over time in the experimental group.
More recently, Scott and Graham (2015) used a pre/posttest design to study
empathy and community engagement in pre-adolescent children. 155 first, second and
fifth graders participated in a five session service-learning experience and paired-samples
t-tests showed that positive increases occurred over time. However, only fifth grade
participants showed significant change in civic efficacy, suggesting that first and second
graders may not be developmentally capable to achieving that growth. This study has
limitations because the service-learning program was only five sessions long, and led by
the researcher, not the classroom teacher. Also, the pre- and post-tests were read aloud to
the first and second graders, which is a strength in research methodology but could have
led to teacher influence in answers. Finally, this study did not contain a control group,
which did not account for developmental changes naturally occurring over the course of
the project.
In the elementary studies found, either there was not a control group or
experimental and control groups were chosen by classroom, meaning other factors could
have contributed to the outcomes. Teacher and classroom variables may have existed in
the studies. In these studies, there was no mention of how teachers implemented the
17
projects, whether there were knowledge differences among teachers, or how the teachers
arranged the classroom environment.
Post-elementary students. Studies reported on students’ concern for others’
welfare and whether students believed it was important to help others in need. Scales et
al. (2000) found that there was a positive effect of student concern for others in students
that had participated in middle school service-learning programs. According to a Likert
scale type assessment, students that were randomly assigned to the service-learning
classes maintained their sense of concern for others’ welfare. In the control group, there
was a decline in these scores over the year in the absence of service-learning
opportunities. Among adolescents and young adults there is a sense of responsibility to
help those close to them, but the satisfaction of helping those more distant was greater
(Killen & Turiel, 1998). Students were asked to share their attitudes and beliefs about
helping others, and there were no age or gender effects on the answers. All students in
the study believed that one should help others even when there is a personal sacrifice
involved. They also shared that there was a higher sense of satisfaction when they helped
a stranger rather than a close friend or relative (Killen and Turiel, 1998).
Also based on Astin’s (2000) study, college students who have participated in
service-learning opportunities are more likely to choose a future career in a service field.
In the study, service-learning had one of the strongest positive effects on students’ career
decisions. If students are given the opportunity to serve the community, their sense of
civic responsibility is fostered. Also, as suggested by these studies, in order to maintain
students’ sense of civic responsibility, service-learning opportunities should be offered
continuously across a student’s educational career.
18
Middle school students who were enrolled in a service-learning course were more
likely to perceive that school provides opportunities for independence and growth (Scales
et al., 2000). This is also coupled with a higher pursuit of goals and higher GPA. These
results suggest that service-learning does lead to beneficial outcomes in attitudes towards
school as well as academic success. Teachers who have used service learning strategies in
their classroom report an increase in motivation among their students (Ponder, Vander
Veldt, and Lewis-Ferrell, 2011).
Scales et al. (2006) compared high socioeconomic middle school students to
lower socioeconomic students in terms of service learning and their academic success. It
was determined that higher socioeconomic students with service experience had the
highest scores in commitment to learning assets, grades and attendance. However, lower
socioeconomic students with service experience reported being more committed to
learning, getting better grades, and missing fewer days of school. Most of these scores
were also higher than high students with no service experience. These data suggest that
service learning opportunities may help to reduce the achievement gaps in our schools
(Scales et al., 2006). Perhaps offering these opportunities for younger students would
begin to close the achievement gap earlier.
Finally, service-learning opportunities are suggested to improve aspects of youth
development. Allowing students to become involved in the community has been
associated with the positive development of self-esteem, self-efficacy, social skills,
problem solving and critical thinking skills (Celio, Durlak, & Dymnicki, 2011). Based
on these studies, it is evident that service-learning may be beneficial for all students.
19
Elementary Teachers
In Billig’s (2000) analysis of literature, it was found that educators in schools with
strong service-learning programs reported more positive school climate. She also stated
that educators involved in service learning engage in more discussions of teaching and
learning and of best ways for students to learn. These teachers participate in more
reflection and analysis to determine how to improve educational services to students.
Eyler (2002) also suggests that service-learning can have a positive impact on teachers’
attitudes related to social responsibility.
Most studies involving elementary teachers focus not on in-service teachers, but
pre-service teachers while they are students in a teacher preparation program. This just
reiterates the focus on service-learning in university settings. Most studies in this area
focus on pre-service teachers participating in an undergraduate course that involves
visiting local elementary schools as mentors/ tutors to those students (Barnes, 2016;
Chien, 2017; Cone, 2009; Eppler, Ironsmith, Dingle, & Errickson, 2011; Tinkler,
Hannah, Tinkler, & Miller, 2015; Wilson, Bradbury & McGlasson, 2015).
Wilson, Bradbury, and McGlasson (2015) explored the service-learning
experiences of preservice elementary teachers in their science methods course. 42
preservice elementary teachers wrote written reflections and were interviewed at the end
of the course following their service-learning experiences working with elementary
students. This study suggests that participating in a service-learning experience as a
preservice teacher can positively impact the teacher in three main areas, academic course
content, pedagogical strategies, and their interactions with students. Participants stated
that they felt their experiences enhanced the science content and allowed them to see the
20
connection between the content and the people and issues in the community. They also
suggested that their experiences allowed them to become more confident in science
pedagogical methods, thus positively impacting their teacher identity. Finally,
participants felt connected to the students with whom they interacted and could sense
they were having a positive impact on the school community.
Wall (2016) conducted her study with 23 preservice teachers who participated in
at service-learning opportunity as a part of an entry-level education course. The
preservice teachers volunteered at a highly diverse Title I elementary school where they
taught science curriculum in an outdoor space, helped to restore the school’s nature trail,
and built a school garden. Reflective papers and surveys were collected from students
before and after their experience. Through constant comparative data analysis, Wall
suggests that the service-learning experience had positive outcomes on both the
preservice teachers and the elementary students they mentored. Preservice teachers were
able to gain an understanding that teaching is complex and requires thorough planning.
They also learned that the children were less “different” than they expected and their
interactions could positively impact the students’ lives. Benefits for the 41 fourth graders
that were mentored through the project included increased self-esteem and social skills.
DeJarnette and Sudeck (2016) implemented a mixed method design to study the
impact that service-learning might have on the preparation of elementary teacher
candidates. Researchers selected 38 pre-service elementary teachers, and presented them
an introduction to service-learning. They were provided with the definition and examples
of service-learning, and “then brainstormed ideas for designing and implementing an
interdisciplinary teaching unit with service-learning embedded, for an overall
21
instructional design” (p. 141). It is important to note, that the definition of service-
learning used for pre-service teachers was not provided in the study. These teacher
candidates were then required to implement a service-learning project during their
clinical practice semester. Data were collected through pre- and post-surveys as well as
focus groups and document review. Several findings were revealed, including that
implementing such a project increases teachers’ understanding of service-learning and
their teaching efficacy as well. These teacher candidates gained confidence in
developing an integrated curriculum and prepared them for teaching in high needs
communities. This study neglected to provide specifics on how teacher candidates were
prepared to implement a service-learning project, but found that teachers who were
provided the professional development felt more confident in the classroom.
These studies highlight the literature focusing on only preservice elementary
teachers and their participation in service-learning opportunities during their teacher
education courses. The studies show that participating in service-learning can positively
impact student expectations and beliefs, teacher efficacy, and content knowledge, but fail
to focus on how in-service teachers can implement or benefit from service-learning in
their classrooms.
Limitations of Service-Learning Literature
There were a few limitations found in the existing service learning studies. Only
four studies were found that focused on elementary students. These studies were
described above (Dones, 1999; Lakin & Mahoney, 2006; Soslau & Yost, 2007; Wang,
Greathouse & Falcinella, 1997). In the meta-analysis by Celio et al. (2011), only 5% of
studies focused on elementary students. Most studies focused on older students and
22
young adults attending college. Although some studies focused on teacher candidates
participating in service-learning, none of the literature focused on in-service elementary
teacher practices. This gap in the literature suggests that elementary teachers do not
engage in service learning activities. To the contrary, the participants in this study strove
to implement a service-learning project within an existing elementary curriculum.
However, documentation of their struggles and successes do not have existing
scholarship that might confirm or provide alternate narratives to the findings that emerge
in this study.
Secondly, most data collected in the previous studies were self-reported data,
rather than direct observations. Self-reported data may not be considered as valid as
other types of data collection (Celio et al., 2011). Students who self-report data may be
influenced by their peers, teachers, or other factors that cause them to provide invalid
data.
Instructional Planning
In this section, I will examine instructional planning practices of elementary
teachers. The focus will be on how in-service teachers plan for daily instruction and the
factors that influence that planning. Finally, I will discuss the planning specifically for
service-learning projects.
Daily Planning
Instructional planning has been studied for years. It can be defined as the
systematic development of instructional requirements, arrangement, conditions, materials
activities, and the evaluation of teaching and learning (Panasuk & Todd, 2005). Tyler
(1949) developed a model for planning that has been taught in pre-service programs. His
23
model is a logical sequence that suggests that teachers plan for instruction by developing
objectives first, then instructional activities, then assessment. This method of planning
wrongly suggests that in all human action, a person decides first on a goal and then puts
in time and energy to achieve it. It suggests that the ends are separate from the means,
which is incompatible with some education philosophies (Zahorik, 1976). Tyler’s
planning model emphasizes teacher power and control and fails to provide opportunities
for student independence and student-led learning. This model is still taught in current
teacher preparation programs, along with a different approach to unit planning labeled
“backward design.” This backward design focuses first on the outcomes of the lesson as
well as the evidence that the outcomes have been successful (Wiggins & McTighe,
2005). Once the specific goals are established for the unit, the teacher then plans the
assessment or evaluation of the students. Although this backwards design is a different
approach than Tyler suggests, I would suggest that it is still a linear, formulaic approach.
Since Tyler’s linear model was developed, researchers have studied whether
teachers use this model in practice. Several studies have found that experienced teachers
do not use the objectives first model (Young, Reiser, & Dick, 1998). In fact, studies have
found that teachers do not even see a need for lesson planning, and they tend not to write
lesson plans on paper. In a survey of 174 elementary school teachers, over 50% stated
that they do not prepare plans and find it unnecessary to prepare plans (Oguz & Bayindir,
2009). It was also found that teachers’ lesson plans are not constructivist based or
student centered because they plan their lessons without taking individual differences and
environmental conditions into consideration (Oguz & Bayindir, 2009).
24
Although Tyler’s objective first model is taught in pre-service education, other
models may represent a more accurate view of teacher practices (Reiser, 1994). Teachers
tend to first plan instructional activities that will fulfill the class time. Many times, the
objectives arise from the activities that are planned, instead of the end result being
separate from the means as Tyler suggests (Koeller & Thompson, 1980; Zahorik, 1975).
McCutcheon (1981) studied 12 elementary school teachers to learn their planning
methods. She found that most teachers do not start with the objectives of the lesson, but
choose an activity selected from available sources such as teacher editions, curriculum
guides, or district issued materials. It was also discovered that teachers write a brief
outline of activities or topics they will cover in a planbook only because it is required by
a principal. Most planning is done mentally, prior to any plans written, and many times,
those plans change while teaching is occurring (McCutcheon, 1980).
Sardo-Brown (1990) surveyed 33 teachers with a mean of 13 years teaching
experience to determine their daily planning practices. Her results were consistent with
previous studies. She found when teachers were planning for daily instruction, activities
seemed to be the most pivotal decision over objectives and students. However, teachers
did consult resources such as textbooks or curriculum guides to look at the next day’s
goals or objectives. Appleton (2002) also found that elementary teachers believed that
choosing activities that were hands-on, engaging, manageable, and use readily available
equipment was an effective way to teach science. This perception led to a fragmented
science curriculum that did not allow for students to develop a conceptual understanding.
25
Factors that Influence Planning
McCutcheon (1981) and Sardo-Brown (1990) both found similar factors that
influence teacher planning. McCutcheon studied twelve teachers in grades one through
six. Through classroom observations, planning sessions, and interviews, she found that
the main influence on teacher planning was their coursework in their teacher preparation
program. The teachers in her study were influenced by a lack of education on planning.
McCutcheon also found that the availability of materials and the administrative practices
and policies highly influenced teacher planning. Sardo-Brown surveyed twelve middle
level teachers to discover the top ranked influence on teacher planning was student
learning followed by lesson goal beliefs and district curriculum guides. These factors
also align with other studies (Yinger, 1980; Shavelson & Stern, 1981; Borko & Niles,
1982).
During Yinger’s (1980) ethnographic study, he spent 12 full weeks observing one
teacher’s planning strategies and teaching practice. He found that this first and second
grade teacher was influenced most by activities and materials available for those
activities. He also found that student characteristics and abilities influenced planning
more often than other factors.
Egeler (1993) conducted a Likert-type survey of 11,225 teachers in the state of
Alabama. He found five factors that influenced teacher planning decisions. They
included, state regulations, professional expectations or guidelines established by
administration, textbook influence, classroom management experience, and
undergraduate teacher education programs. This study is limited because it only focused
on secondary teachers, and does not include elementary or middle level teachers.
26
Oguz and Bayindir (2009) found that most elementary school teachers develop
plans based on teacher guides and unit yearly plans. Only 40% of the teachers surveyed
stated that they always prepare their lessons plans in terms of the learning outcomes in
the curriculum.
These studies illustrate that there are three connected factors that influence a
teacher’s planning. They include availability of materials, teacher beliefs and attitudes,
including beliefs about student abilities, teacher skills and knowledge, and teacher
perceptions of administrative policies and events within the school.
Planning for Service-Learning
The literature focusing on a framework for service-learning is very limited. In
their study, Sandmann, Kiely, and Grenier (2009) compared three cases of service-
learning in graduate level courses and focused on the planning rather than outcomes for
students. They suggested a planning model for service-learning programs at the graduate
level (See Figure 2.1). Their model (SLPPM) is centered around four partners. These
partners include students, faculty, community, partners, and the higher education
institution. Each partner holds “a stake in the success of a service-learning program, all
have influence over the process, and all have interests to maintain and cultivate”
(Sandmann, Kiely, & Grenier, 2009, p. 23). It is important that each partner is included
in each of the proposed dimensions within the planning process. The SLPPM includes
five dimensions, research, relationships, roles and responsibilities, representation, and
resources. Each dimension is focused on a different element that each partner brings to
the planning process based on their goals and intentions for the project. In their study,
the research and relationship dimensions seemed to stand out as the most important
27
dimensions (Sandmann, Kiely, & Grenier, 2009). They found that incorporating research
opportunities throughout service-learning courses helped ensure greater understanding
and clarity among the partners. They also found that successful planning required
nurturing relationships and fostering communication among all the partners.
Whitley & Walsh published their framework in 2014; however, they also only
focused on the design of service-learning courses at the collegiate level. I have included
their framework to highlight the many components necessary to plan for when
implementing a service-learning project (see Figure 2.2). This recent planning model
focuses on the student participants and does not include the relationship component that
is shown in figure 2.2.
Figure 2.1. Image of Sandmann, Kiely, and Grenier
(2009) service-learning program planning model
(SLPPM).
28
These studies show that there is a need for a planning model for service-learning,
but neglect to include elementary programs in the model. Planning for elementary
students is different than university students.
To summarize, most elementary teachers do not use a linear, formulaic planning
strategy when planning for instruction. They use teacher manuals and other school
provided resources to plan for activities and objectives seem to arise from these activities.
Most experienced teachers no not write lesson plans unless they are required by a
principal, and most planning occurs mentally. There are factors that influence planning,
including teacher beliefs and attitudes, content knowledge, and perceptions of school
interactions and policies. In planning for service-learning there are models available at
the university level, but there is no literature suggesting a model for elementary levels.
Figure 2.2. Image of Whitley and Walsh (2014) service-learning
framework.
29
Garden-Based Learning
In this section, the historical background of garden-based learning (GBL) will be
discussed as well as the theoretical frameworks influencing GBL. Current research will
be examined in order to discuss the outcomes and benefits of a GBL program.
Before discussing GBL it is important to give a definition. Garden-based learning
“encompasses programs, activities, and projects in which a garden is the foundation for
integrated learning, in and across disciplines through active, engaging, real-world
experiences” (Desmond, Grieshop & Subramaniam, 2002, p. 7).
Historical Background
GBL is not a new pedagogical tool in education. In the early 1900s, influenced
by the work of progressive educational leaders like Dewey, Montessori, and Rousseau,
GBL was encouraged to teach students about natural phenomena and to foster the
appreciation of their natural surroundings (Kohlstedt, 2008; Williams & Dixon, 2013).
Garden-Based Learning in the United States was inspired by programs already in place in
Europe and Australia. During World War I, school gardens became popular as they were
used in the war effort to provide food for the communities. These gardens provided a
learning environment for students to learn the practices of farming and agriculture for
food production. In the 1920’s school reform shifted towards technology, and the GBL
movement faded (Blair, 2009; Williams & Dixon, 2013).
In the past 20 years, GBL has become more popular in schools once again.
School gardens have gained popularity since the increase in childhood obesity and the
stress of standardized tests in education. Public health organizations stress the use of
school gardens to teach about the importance of fruit and vegetable intake as well as
30
provide students with physical activity to decrease body fat percentages and BMI of
students (Blair, 2009). Outdoor education proponents also encourage the use of school
gardens to get students out of the traditional classroom and into the real world. The
organization “No Child Left Inside Coalition” was established to support legislation to
ensure that every child receives environmental literacy as a part of their education. The
No Child Left Inside act would amend the No Child Left Behind Act to include
environmental education in schools (Connecticut Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection, 2009).
Theoretical Framework of Garden-Based Learning
Theoretical frameworks influencing Garden-based learning include the work of
Dewey, Vygotsky, Kolb, and Gardner (Bowker & Tearle, 2007; Libman, 2007; Rahm,
2002). Dewey and Kolb stress the importance of experiences in learning. Learning
begins with an experience that the learner perceives as meaningful. A meaningful,
quality experience is one that influences and promotes future success in similar
circumstances (Dewey, 1938). According to Dewey, these experiences should mimic real
life situations. Vygotsky (1978) stresses the importance of the context in learning. He
perceived the environment and social interaction as the source of learning and
development (Rahm, 2002). Finally, Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence
frames school gardens as he has added the naturalistic intelligence to his theory. Gardner
suggests that students have several different areas of intelligence including logistic,
linguistic, kinesthetic, and naturalistic. Providing students with opportunities to use their
multiple intelligences will influence and improve learning and academic success
(Gardner, 1999). School gardens provide these opportunities.
31
Outcomes and Benefits of Garden-Based Learning
Garden-based learning programs have increased in the United States. In
California, as of 2005, there were over 2000 schools reporting the use of school gardens
for the enhancement of academic curriculum or extra-curricular activities. This is a 24%
increase from 1999. Most of California’s gardens are in elementary schools (Graham,
Beall, Lussier, McLaughlin, & Ziden-Cherr, 2005).
Studies suggest many positive outcomes of garden-based learning. In a review of
empirical studies by Williams and Dixon (2013), about half of the studies on GBL
focused on grades three through five and most evaluated the impact of programs on
science achievement when measuring academic effects. Out of 40 academic outcome
studies, 14 measured science outcomes. Rahm (2002) evaluated an inner-city youth
garden program and the impact of the experience on the science knowledge of
participants. Twenty-three participants, ages 11-14, engaged in an eight-week summer
program where they worked in a garden, nurturing, harvesting, and marketing their crops.
It was found that science content emerged from the youth’s interactions with the garden
and each other. Science became accessible to the youth through their involvement in
garden activities, and through their discourse and connections with the program leaders
(Rahm, 2002). This study validates theories of Vygotsky (1978) and Dewey (1938) by
demonstrating that “children can become masters of science embedded in their everyday
communities and practices if provided with opportunities to do science that is meaningful
and real to them” (p. 165).
Canaris (1995) provides a personal narrative of how she integrated a garden into
the whole academic curriculum. She tells the story of how a community member
32
volunteered his time to teach the students how to plant a garden to grow healthy
classroom snacks. This “snack garden” led to more than just healthy snacks. The 40
students in grades 1 through 4 used science and math to build the garden and plant the
crops they desired. They used reading and language arts to research the different types of
plants and to write letters to local businesses for donations. The students also added
social studies content as they learned the economic value of the food production industry
in their community. Canaris states in her paper that the academic grades of her students
improved when using the garden as a learning environment, but does not give any
statistical evidence to support her claim.
McArthur’s (2010) study suggests that a gardening program increases academic
achievement. Through qualitative and quantitative research methodologies, this study
examined the outcomes of a youth garden project at the Safe Haven After-School
Program that was implemented with the help of the social work department at Tuskegee
University. Fifty-five students aged 6-13 were members of the after-school program and
participated in the youth garden project where they learned how to plant and care for their
food crops. Activities included planting, weeding, irrigation, harvesting, and post-harvest
handling. Academic GPA’s were analyzed prior to and following participation in the
program. Academically, grade point averages of students increased overall by 3.45
points. Reading and Science scores increased the greatest by 3.94 and 3.69 points
respectively (McArthur, 2010). Students and mentors as well as program leaders were
also interviewed to gain reflective data. Nonacademic outcomes that were reported
included an improved work ethic in students, better teamwork and cooperation with
peers, and increased life skills and self-confidence. These results are consistent with
33
other studies showing similar non-academic results (Blair, 2009; Bowker & Tearle, 2007;
Williams & Dixon, 2013). Studies show that garden-based learning has outcomes other
than just positive academic outcomes (Blair, 2009; Canaris, 1995; Ozer, 2007; Parmer,
Salisbury-Glennon, Shannon, & Struempler, 2009; Sobel, 2001). Recent studies provide
evidence that GBL programs improve self – efficacy, motivation, quality of school life,
appreciation of nature, social development, connections with the community, problem
solving and critical thinking skills (Williams & Dixon, 2013). Finally, research has
shown that GBL also helps to improve students’ nutritional knowledge, fruit and
vegetable preferences, and dietary habits (M. Anderson & Swafford, 2011; Libman,
2007; Neustadter, Morris, & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2001; Sobel, 2001).
Summary
The purpose of this literature review was to examine research in instructional
planning, service-learning and garden-based learning fields to establish the need for the
current study. Service-learning is a curricular tool that engages students in community
service while integrating academic standards, while garden-based learning does not
include the community impact component. Research shows that both practices, service
and garden-based learning have positive outcomes for students. Combining them may
just increase the positive outcomes if recommended components are used in the
development of the program. Research also shows that literature is sparse in the field to
help teachers plan for the implementation of a service-learning project. There were no
studies found that observed teacher planning sessions or studies that focused on teacher
planning practices in the area of service learning.
34
This research can inform education practices. This research could be used to
design a developmentally appropriate service-learning planning model for elementary
teachers to use while integrating service-learning into all core content areas. By using
both the recommended practices in service-learning, a model could be developed to
engage students in a meaningful, authentic experience that fosters learning about the
community and academic content. This research could also be used in teacher education
programs to inform pre-service teachers the importance of experiential education
practices such a service-learning and garden-based learning and develop different
planning strategies they can use within their classrooms. Professional development can
also be developed for teachers implementing a service-learning project in their schools.
Teachers will need pedagogical knowledge to plan and implement an effective service-
learning project. Katie’s Krops is a national nonprofit organization that is expanding
each year; it is important to provide teachers with the knowledge and practices necessary
to effectively implement a program such as Katie’s Krops that will help people in need in
the community.
35
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
The purpose of this study was to explore and gain insight into how elementary
school teachers use service learning and to examine underlying factors that shape and
influence how teachers plan for and implement those service learning projects. This
study is framed within an interpretive research discourse. “In interpretive research,
education is considered to be gained from an inductive, hypothesis- or theory-generating
(rather than a deductive or testing) mode of inquiry” (Merriam, 1998, p. 4). Interpretive
study relies on the assumption that knowledge is dependent on lived experiences and
refers to an understanding of the way one makes sense or meaning of his or her own
world (Creswell & Miller, 1997). The participants in interpretive studies provide specific
illustrations of their practices and internal perspectives and meanings. The data collected
are naturalistic and descriptive. Data are collected through interactions between the
researcher, participants, and the research setting using words rather than numbers like in
quantitative research. The role of the researcher is to recreate the meaning of those
studied rather than alter that meaning to fit his or her own biases (Bogdan & Biklen,
2007). “The investigator does not gain knowledge by espousing a rigid theory but forms
it inductively from views and experiences of participants in the research” (Creswell &
Miller, 1997, p. 37). It is with these assumptions that I conducted this study.
This study helped me to understand the meaning of the events, situations,
experiences and actions in which teachers are engaged while implementing a service
36
learning project in their classroom. It is important to gain full access to the teachers’
perspectives to understand how an authentic learning experience is implemented in
elementary school. Current research in service-learning mostly focuses on student
benefits (Celio, Durlak, & Dymnicki, 2011), and those that focus on perspectives of
teachers are concentrated on teachers’ perspectives of student achievement (Billig, Root,
& Jesse, 2005). Very few studies were found in an elementary school setting, and those
studies were focused on quantitative survey data self-reported by students, and did not
focus on teachers. These studies were discussed in the review of literature in chapter 2
(Lakin & Mahoney 2006; Soslau & Yost, 2007; Dones, 1999; Scott & Graham, 2015;
Wang, Greathouse, & Falcinella, 1997). This study adds to current research by focusing
on teacher perspectives instead of student outcomes, and provides insight into
instructional planning strategies for service-learning. Based on this goal, two research
questions were developed.
1. How does elementary teachers’ instructional planning influence their
understanding and implementation of service-learning?
2. How are elementary teachers’ perceptions and implementation of service-
learning influenced during the use of a garden-based program in the
classroom?
Qualitative, interpretive research methods were chosen because I wanted to
generate data rich in detail and embedded within context (Maxwell, 2013). Maxwell
(2013) advises against logical strategy that is created a priori when designing a
qualitative study. “The activities of collecting and analyzing data, developing and
modifying theory, elaborating or refocusing the research questions, and identifying and
37
addressing validity are usually all going on more or less simultaneously, each influencing
all of the others” (Maxwell, 2013, p.2). Any component of interpretive design may need
to be constructed and reconstructed repeatedly based on new findings or when another
aspect of research has changed. Using Maxwell’s advice, interpretive research allowed
me to gain insight into the teachers’ sense making of the service learning experiences in
which they were involved.
Specifically, an interpretive approach was used to frame the case study to describe
and interpret teachers’ experiences with instructional planning during the service-learning
project. Merriam (2009) suggests that a case study should be used to explore the
experiences of participants and describe and interpret experiences as they are revealed.
Case studies investigate contemporary phenomenon in depth and within a real-world
context, especially when boundaries between phenomenon and context may not be clear
(Yin, 2014). The contemporary phenomenon that was studied was the implementation of
a Katie’s Krops garden at a Southeastern United States elementary school.
Katie’s Krops is a nonprofit organization that awards annual grants to children to
help them build a garden that will provide healthy, fresh produce to the community. This
organization was started in 2008 by a third-grade student named Katie Stagliano. She has
grown her organization to include over 100 gardens in 30 different states. Each year,
children, ages 9-13, apply for a grant by sending an application answering several
questions about their intentions to help their communities. Grant applicants are required
to name an adult sponsor or supervisor that will oversee their garden efforts and serve as
a mentor during the process. When a school, like Southside Elementary, applies, the
students answer the questions and the teachers are named as those supervisors. Katie
38
reads each application to choose the recipients, and they are awarded $500 to begin their
garden. As recipients of the grant, gardeners are required to submit monthly updates and
photos to Katie’s Krops. Monthly updates include providing data about the kinds of
vegetables grown, the weight in pounds of harvested produce, and any hardships or
obstacles they faced that month.
In this case study, data emerged through interaction with the participants.
Through interviews, planning sessions and observations, the insight into teachers’
knowledge and understanding of service-learning helped in understanding how they
implement it in their classrooms. Gaining further insight into the perspectives of the
teachers’ experiences is important to understanding the challenges and successes they
experienced while implementing service-learning strategies.
Research Methods and Procedure
Context
I used “purposeful selection” when choosing the case for this study. Purposeful
sampling is used when researchers need to include subjects because they are believed to
facilitate the development of a theory (Bogden & Biklen, 2007). “The criterion you
establish for purposeful sampling directly reflect the purpose of the study and guide in the
identification of information-rich cases” (Merriam, 1998). I chose a rural elementary
school located in a southeastern state based on one sole criterion, that they were
implementing a Katie’s Krops garden as a service-learning project. Southside Elementary
School was awarded a grant from Katie’s Krops to plant a garden at the school (all names
and places have been given pseudonyms). At this research site, students had already
answered questions and were awarded the grant before I started data collection (See
39
Appendix A for the grant questions). The teachers provided students with two choices of
service-learning projects, one supporting the local animal shelter and the other being
Katie’s Krops. The teachers provided information about both organizations to the
students and they chose to apply for the Katie’s Krops grant. Throughout the next week,
students answered the grant questions and named their teachers as their supervisors.
Teachers selected the best written answers to be sent in to the organization with the grant
application. Although Katie’s Krops is considered a youth based organization, the
teachers were still responsible for overseeing the project and ensuring that students were
engaged in the building, planting, maintaining, and harvesting of the garden.
This school was chosen for the study because this is the first time they are
implementing this type of garden service-learning project. Maxwell (2013) states that
this selection is justified “in terms of the goals of the study and existing theory and
research.” In interpretive research, it is important that the laboratory is the natural setting
of the experience (Merriam, 1998). Because this school is new to this service-learning
project, it is beneficial for the research study to document the teachers’ first experiences
with the instructional planning.
Description of site. Southside Elementary is a Title 1 school currently serving
approximately 545 four-year-old through fifth grade students. The school population
breaks down to 60% white, 35% black, and 5% other. More than half (58.5%) of the
students received free or reduced lunch options. Administration at the school adopted the
Leader in Me curriculum adapted from Franklin Covey’s 7 Habits of Highly Effective
People program. Covey published his program in 1989 to help business leaders live their
lives in the most effective ways. He developed seven habits that all people should
40
develop to be effective leaders in the world (“The 7 Habits,” n.d.) The seven habits
include: be proactive, begin with the end in mind, put first things first, think win-win,
seek first to understand, then be understood, synergize, and sharpen the saw. These
habits are adapted into student friendly language as a part of the Leader in Me
curriculum. This curriculum is a “whole school transformation process. It teaches 21st
century leadership and life skills to students and creates a culture of student
empowerment based on the idea that every child can be a leader” (“A Whole School,”
n.d., para. 1). As a part of this new curriculum, the principal requires each grade level to
participate in a service-learning project each year. The school principal stated:
“The expectation was, it did come through the Leader in Me, and the whole point
is trying to make students leaders of self and understand real world so with every
single grade level adopting a service-learning project the intent was the students
would select it, the students would be involved every single step of the way. I felt
strongly when we started with the leader in me that this had to be a part of who
we are. We live in a “me, me society” and we want to teach students to give
without getting” (January 2016).
Participants
Because the school was chosen based on the grant they received from Katie’s
Krops, it was necessary to reach out to teachers who would be working with their
students to build and maintain the garden. After speaking with the principal, an
introduction letter was sent to teachers interested in using the garden informing them of
this service-learning study. Teachers that were interested in participating were instructed
41
to contact me, the researcher, via email. See appendix B for a copy of the letter sent to
teachers.
Purposeful sampling was used again to adequately capture purpose of the study
and achieve the representativeness of the participants (Maxwell, 2013). The third-grade
team of four teachers were the only teachers to express interest in participation because
their students applied for the grant, their team leader reached out on behalf of the team.
Of those four teachers, three were chosen to adequately capture the heterogeneity in the
population. The fourth teacher was a first-year teacher with whom I had a previous
relationship, serving as her science methods instructor. I felt that our previous
relationship and her first-year status would influence data collection. In the second year,
a new teacher was added to the team, and agreed to participate in the study. This new
teacher was selected purposefully because of her years of experience. The use of this
purposeful sampling is necessary to ensure that I collected relevant data from teachers
with a variety of instructional planning experiences. I was interested in working with a
sample of three to four teachers, one with less than five years of teaching experience, at
least one with between five and ten years of experience, and at least one with more than
ten years. This sampling of teachers provided insight into different experiences with
instructional planning techniques used while implementing a service learning project.
Merriam (1998) suggests that even finding a small sample with maximum diversity can
provide important shared patterns that are evident across participants. I reached out to
those four teachers individually, both in person and via email, to discuss the process and
schedule a preliminary interview.
42
Description of participants. The third-grade team at Southside Elementary
School and their students applied for and were awarded a Katie’s Krops grant to build
and maintain their school garden. These teachers agreed to participate in the study, and
they met the criteria and requirements I had deemed necessary for the study. All four
third grade teachers were teaching self-contained classrooms at Southside Elementary
School. Each teacher was a different age and had a different level of experience in the
field, one with less than five years, one with five to ten years, one with over 20 years, and
finally one with over 30 years of experience.
Alice is a white 45-year-old middle class female, native to the small rural town.
She is the grade chair and has been teaching at the school the longest. She has been
teaching for 23 years and has taught grades pre-k through 4. She holds a Bachelor’s
degree in education and is a reading recovery coach as well as certified to teach gifted
and talented students.
Amanda is a 33-year-old, middle class, white female. She is originally from out
of state and holds a Bachelor’s degree in interior design. She was working in the
corporate world prior to completing her Master’s degree in education. She had been
teaching for only one year prior to participating in this study.
Callie is a white, 37-year-old middle class female. She had been teaching for 8
years in Chicago, Illinois prior to coming to Southside Elementary School. She holds a
Master’s degree in education. Callie was hired during the second academic year of the
study. Her late addition to the project influenced the amount of data collection pertaining
to her case.
43
Lydia is a 55-year-old middle class, white female. She has been teaching for 31
years. She has taught 1st through 4th grades at two different elementary schools, and
taught 7th and 8th grade science at a middle school. She has a Bachelor’s degree in
elementary education. Lydia agreed to participate in the study but because of time
constraints, chose not to participate in the four one on one interviews. She was, however,
involved in all planning sessions as well as the focus groups. I also could observe her
class as they worked on the service-learning project, and she was willing to answer
follow-up questions when I had them after the observations. I felt it was important to
include her story in the data because she provided a different perspective that added new
knowledge to the study.
During data collection, I felt it necessary to include the principal of the school in
my study. Lucy is a 55-year-old, upper class, white female. She has been in education
for 33 years, serving the last eight as the principal of Southside Elementary School. Prior
to being principal, she’s been an assistant principal, a special education teacher, and a
secondary writing teacher.
Data Collection Methods
Interpretive research requires a variety of data collection methods to ensure that
the participants’ experiences are well documented and able to be reported without bias.
This study predominantly utilized interviews to collect data, but focus groups,
observations, and document review were used to ensure data triangulation (Merriam,
1998).
44
Interviews
The primary source of data generation was semi-structured interviews with
teachers. Interviews are necessary when we cannot observe behavior, feelings, or how a
person interprets a phenomenon (Merriam, 1998). An interview is used to gather
descriptive data in the participant’s own words so that the researcher can develop insights
on how participants interpret some part of their world (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). A
preliminary interview was conducted to build rapport with teachers and to determine their
prior knowledge about service learning and their individual lesson planning practices.
This information was necessary to answer the second research question. These
interviews were conducted prior to the garden being utilized in their classroom to
contextualize how the teachers used the garden in their teaching. The preliminary
interview started with open-ended questions to gain knowledge of the teacher’s
background and then transitioned to semi-structured protocol to gain specific information
from participants using probing questions (see Appendix C for protocol). During
interviews, I used a voice recording device to later transcribe the participant’s answers for
analysis. I also took field notes during interviews to further inform the coding and data
analysis. These field notes included written accounts of what I heard, saw, experienced,
and thought during the data collection and analysis processes (Bogden & Biklen, 2007).
For example, during an interview with Amanda at the beginning of data collection, I
wrote in my notebook that she had some great ideas about connecting academic standards
and made a note to revisit them at our next meeting to see if she had implemented those
ideas.
45
Over the course of the study, I conducted four, forty-minute interviews with each
participant. The initial interview occurred in September 2015. Interviews were then
conducted in May 2016, December 2016/January 2017, and May 2017 (See Table 3.1).
The interviews followed a semi-structured protocol so that probing questions could be
asked to gather relevant data on teachers’ developing understanding of service-learning
and instructional planning (See Appendix D). These interviews allowed for additional
questions based on observations as well. Interviews were scheduled with teachers and
occurred in their classrooms or in the conference room at the school. Interviews were no
more than an hour long and either occurred during the teacher’s planning time or after the
school day ended. During the interviews, I sat across from or next to the participant. I
started each interview by asking the participant whether I had her permission to record
our time together so that I could analyze the data later. I then explained that her answers
would be confidential and I would be the only one with access to the data as the
recording was on a password protected device. I also assured the participants that I
would use pseudonyms to protect their privacy.
During the study, I felt it necessary to include the principal of the school in the
data collection process. I scheduled two interviews, one in January 2016 and one in May
2017, to learn her expectations and observations of the service-learning projects and the
teachers’ planning of those projects at the school. This allowed me to paint a better
picture of the feedback and support the teachers were receiving from administration
during their service learning projects.
Interviews provide “… access to the observations of others. Through interviewing
we can learn about places we have not been” (Weiss, 1994). Through these interviews I
46
learned more about these teachers’ experiences with service-learning as they were
experiencing it. Because of my extended absence from the elementary classroom, it was
difficult for me to put myself in their shoes as a teacher new to planning for a service-
learning project. Through their interviews, I gained access to the insight necessary to
answer my research questions.
Month Data Collected
September 2015 Initial Interviews, 1st
Planning Session
December 2015 Planning Session, Focus
Group
January 2016 Principal Interview
February 2016 Focus Group
March 2016 Planning Session, Class
Observation
May 2016 Interviews
September 2016 Initial Interview with Callie
November 2016 Planning Session
December 2016 Planning Session, Interviews
March 2017 Planning Session, Class
Observation
April 2017 Two Planning Sessions,
Focus Group, Interviews
May 2017 Two Planning Sessions,
Interviews, Principal
Interview
June 2017 Interviews, Follow-up
Interviews
Table 3.1. Data collection timeline.
47
Participant observation
To further collect data, I spent time throughout the school year observing teachers
in their planning meetings. My role as the researcher was participant observer. As
Merriam (1998) suggests, this continuum changed over time and it was a challenge to
understand the process as an insider while creating an unbiased picture for outsiders.
When I first began data collection, I intended to remain as much of a spectator as I could.
However, as I continued to participate in planning sessions, I assumed responsibilities
that advanced the group (Merriam, 1998). When teachers needed help with questions, I
offered my support. During planning sessions, I offered suggestions on how to
implement academic standards and how to involve students in the project. For example,
during a planning session, I suggested that students could write persuasive letters to their
principal asking for permission to construct a data board to install out by the garden.
Field notes were kept noting my roles and my statements during planning and how
teachers interpreted my guidance. When I suggested the persuasive letter, my field notes
reminded me that Lydia’s response was, “We don’t have time for the kids to do that, I’m
just going to do it myself.”
Each planning meeting was held on a Tuesday or Wednesday after school hours
in the team leader’s classroom. Each session lasted an hour to an hour and a half long,
and the teachers and I discussed what needed to happen to get the garden built and
planted and how the students could be involved in the activities. Academic standards
were not discussed as often as the garden maintenance tasks were.
During the study, I was able to observe two classes as they worked in the garden
(See Table 3.1 for timeline). During these observations, I noted how the students were
48
participating in the garden project, and how the teacher was connecting their participation
with academic standards. Eyler and Giles (1999) note that a project needs to connect the
community service to academic curriculum for it to be identified as service-learning.
Katie’s Krops’ mission suggests that children reach out to community members in need
to provide them with fresh vegetables, making it an ideal service-learning experience. I
looked for evidence that the teacher had an objective in mind when planning the lessons.
By observing teachers during planning sessions and classroom instruction, I could
gain further insight into how teachers were or were not implementing the requirements of
effective service-learning. Based on these observations and field notes I could follow up
with questions in interviews.
Focus Groups
Because I spent planning sessions with the teachers, and all my participants were
in the room at the same time, I used these opportunities to do focus group interviews.
Focus groups are structured group interviews that encourage the participants to discuss
issues (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Focus groups can be used to deliberately surface the
views of each person in the group (Yin, 2014). I felt that participants were reserved in
their one on one interviews, and a focus group interview may help to dig deeper into their
personal experiences. During the focus groups, I felt like the teachers all felt they had
similar experiences and it was easier for them to discuss their perceptions of being
unsuccessful when others were agreeing with them. While I asked questions about their
project, the teachers could reflect together and suggest ways to better implement it in the
future.
49
Focus groups were scheduled during planning times either during the school day
or on Tuesday afternoons. I conducted three focus group discussions. Discussions did
not last more than an hour, so teachers felt I was respecting their work time. Teachers
were asked to not bring any other tasks or topics for that time so that service-learning
could be the primary discussion topic. I used a recording device and my field notes to
record data for analysis later.
Data Analysis
Grounded theory is an inductive method of using data to generate theory through
a cyclical process of data collection and data analysis (Pidgeon, 1996). Within grounded
theory, the researcher collects data, analyzes those data for conceptual categories, links
the categories into a developing theory, and then collects more data to see how the theory
fits. When data collection and data analysis occur simultaneously, the study is more
relevant and possibly more profound (Glesne, 2011).
Constant comparative methods were used to analyze data. Pidgeon and Henwood
(1996) suggest several steps in analyzing data. The first step is to analyze initial
transcripts or field notes looking for similar themes that occur within the data. These
themes are indexed into a coding system, and categories that are determined relevant by
the researcher are noted. It is important that while coding an incident for a category, the
researcher compares it with the previous incidents in the same and different groups coded
in the same category (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Coded categories will begin to repeat
themselves, and it is important to explore the similarities and differences (Pidgeon and
Henwood, 1996). This constant comparison starts to generate theoretical properties of
50
each category, and the researcher can begin to integrate the categories. When different
categories and their properties are integrated, theory begins to develop.
In this study, data analysis began after the first preliminary interview. I looked
for patterns within teachers’ explanations of their understanding of service-learning and
instructional planning. These patterns helped me construct categories or themes that may
potentially be meaningful in later interviews. Further themes were analyzed and
compared within teacher lesson plans. The recurring patterns helped to show teachers’
growing understanding of service learning and provide insight into their instructional
planning strategies. These themes were noted in a field notebook and subsequent
interviews were compared as new codes or categories arose. Merriam (1998) has outlined
important guidelines for determining categories. Categories should reflect the purpose of
the research and provide answers to the research questions, they should be “mutually
exclusive, exhaustive, and sensitizing.” These guidelines helped me develop meaningful
codes that the reader will understand. Throughout the study, data were kept in a field
notebook; concept maps and models were developed to help make connections between
categories and themes to construct theory that is grounded in the data.
Ethical Issues
During a qualitative study, the researcher must think about the ethical issues
involved. Bogden & Biklen (2007) suggest two guidelines when researching with human
subjects: informed consent and protection of participants from harm. They suggest that
subjects should volunteer to participate after fully understanding the study and the
obligations it requires. The risks of participating should not be greater than the positive
gains they might achieve. By sending an introduction letter to teachers explaining the
51
entire process of the study, I could ensure they had all the information before they agreed
to participate. To ensure participants privacy and confidentiality, I ensured that
pseudonyms were used in place of names and places. Identifying information of
participants and school site was kept in a locked drawer or on a password protected hard
drive.
Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness is a central part of qualitative research, it implies that the results
of the study are accurate and congruent with reality (Merriam, 1998; Shenton, 2004). In
quantitative research, trustworthiness is established by ensuring internal and external
validity, reliability, and objectivity. Positivists question the ability for a naturalistic study
to be trustworthy because these terms cannot be addressed in the same way (Shenton,
2004). Guba (1981) suggests using different terminology when discussing
trustworthiness in qualitative research, these terms are: credibility, transferability,
dependability, and confirmability.
To increase the credibility of this study, specific procedures were implemented as
suggested by Merriam (1998). I did my best to use triangulation which involves using
multiple data collection methods. Guba (1981) suggests that using multiple collection
methods simultaneously helps to compensate for their downfalls. I used interviews,
observations, and focus group discussions to collect data. I also used member checking
strategies to ensure that I was representing the teachers and their ideas accurately.
Member checking is “systematically soliciting feedback about your data and conclusions
from the people you are studying” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 126). During interviews, I
repeated what participants said, and asked them whether their words matched their intent.
52
While analyzing data, I also reached out to participants when theories began to emerge
and I verified that they could offer explanation for patterns I observed. For example,
Callie and Amanda both struggled with having time to meet all expectations and always
discussed having to go home to children. As I was analyzing data, I reached out to verify
the patterns to see if they made the same assumptions I was about teaching and having
small children at home. Finally, I aimed to provide rich, thick descriptions so that the
reader will understand the research context and continuously reflected on my own
subjectivity and monitored my own biases. Providing rich, thick descriptions also helps to
ensure transferability (Shenton, 2004). This allows readers to have a full understanding
of the topic being studied and then compare what they have read to what they have seen
in other situations.
When discussing reliability in quantitative research, the researcher aims to show
that, if the work was repeated, similar results would be found. In qualitative research,
this is problematic because the data collected are tied to the situation and the setting of
the study (Shenton, 2004). To address dependability, I made sure that I described in full
detail the design and implementation and the data collection and analysis process. For
example, as I continued to collect data, I found it necessary to add the perspective of the
administration. I stated in my data collection and analysis that I scheduled two
interviews with Lucy. I also added a fourth participant in the second year, and clearly
stated how this impacted my data collection and analysis process.
Finally, confirmability refers to the term objectivity used in positivist research
(Guba, 1981). Remaining completely unbiased is difficult in qualitative research because
it is impossible to eliminate the researcher’s theories, beliefs, and perceptual lens
53
(Maxwell, 2013). It is important for the researcher to understand how his or her values
and expectations may have influenced the outcomes of the study. Not only was I the
researcher in the school, I was also a colleague. While I was observing and collecting
data, I was also teaching in a classroom down the hall, and implementing a service-
learning project with my students. As a teacher in the building, I was having similar
experiences to the participants, struggling with the same expectations and policies. When
they spoke in interviews and focus groups, I could relate some to what they discussed.
When they mentioned the administration’s expectations, I noted in my field notes that I
was feeling a bit overwhelmed with all the tasks required. However, I had to reflect on
this, and ensure that I was not influencing the interviews by sharing my own frustrations.
I also had to make sure that my own opinions were not biasing my data analysis. This
could have influenced the outcomes of the research, however, I maintained professional
boundaries and focused my efforts on data collection. To carefully generate sufficient
data, I remained conscious of my position at all times and reflected on each interaction
with participants to be sure that my position was not influential to the data. For example,
I was familiar with the EDI format prior to collecting data from teachers. Instead of
adding my personal views of the strategy, I made sure to only include statements that
teachers shared. At the beginning of each interview, I reminded my participants that I did
not want them to assume that I knew exactly what they were talking about, and I wanted
them to respond to my questions as if I was an outsider rather than a part of the school
community. During interviews or focus groups I used probes like, “Can you explain that
further?” or “Can you give me an example?” I also followed up with participants while
analyzing data to have them confirm they agreed with my conclusions. These processes
54
ensured that I used only my participants’ words in my data analysis, and did not add my
own biases or experiences into the discussions.
Positionality is defined as the space in which objectivism and subjectivism meet
(Bourke, 2014). A researcher must remain aware of their relationship, as the researcher,
with the participants. To remain objective, one must realize and understand their
subjectivity (Bourke, 2014). My positionality could have played a role in my research,
but I did my best to remain conscious of how my position could influence the research.
My role as a participant observer could have biased the research because I was giving
teachers suggestions for planning. My suggestions could have influenced outcomes
because I may have been perceived as an “expert” in service learning. When I gave
suggestions, teachers may have felt they should implement them. Teachers may have felt
pressure from me, causing distance between me and the participants. During a few
planning sessions, I offered suggestions to involve more students in the project. For
example, I thought students could write letters or write scripts to use when calling
community members, I also suggested that students create shopping lists and budgets to
use the grant money efficiently. These activities were never implemented in classrooms
which led me to question my position in planning sessions. By the last planning session,
I had decided to just observe and offer suggestions when I was asked. To compensate for
these things, I made sure to reflect on my data and revisit interview questions for
clarification.
55
CHAPTER FOUR
RESEARCH FINDINGS
As indicated in previous chapters, the purpose of this study was to explore,
understand, and interpret how elementary school teachers use service learning, and to
examine underlying factors that shape and influence how teachers plan for and implement
service learning projects. To understand the phenomenon in context, I focused on two
research questions: 1. How does elementary teachers’ instructional planning influence
their understanding and implementation of service learning? 2. How are teachers’
perceptions and implementation of service learning influenced during the use of a garden
based program in the classroom?
Data collection spanned a time period of September 2015 through June 2017. For
a complete timeline of the study, see Appendix E. For two academic years, I spent time
observing teachers in ten of their planning meetings when they intended to discuss the
service-learning project. I also conducted interviews and focus group discussions
throughout the course of the project. There were mitigating circumstances that interfered
with the collection of data. Overall, the teachers felt they were not successful in meeting
their goals of the service-learning project. Amanda stated, “My goal was to do a better
job than last year and to be more involved. Have I reached that, absolutely not?” (May
2016). Alice told me the project in her classroom is, “very superficial, just touching the
surface of what it could be” (May 2017). Callie told me, “I didn’t understand what it
56
[service-learning] was, so the kids didn’t get it, neither did I” (May 2017). Data
presented provides the teacher perspectives as to why they were unsuccessful.
In this chapter, I will present data in a timeline format beginning with the initial
interviews, then the 2015-2016 school year, and finally the 2016-2017 school year. For
each academic year, I will provide an overview of the experiences based on my field
notes and then will provide specific data for each of the four teachers studied.
Initial Interviews
I began my data collection with initial interviews of the participants. Most
importantly, this allowed me to develop a relationship with each participant to gain trust.
It was also important to learn teachers’ instructional planning practices to understand how
they plan for regular instruction, and in comparison, to the planning that happens during
the service learning project. This information helped me begin to answer the first
research question: How does elementary teachers’ instructional planning influence their
understanding and implementation of service learning?
Alice
In my initial interview with Alice, she identified the school district’s pacing guide
as a major influence of how she plans. She said, “I follow the district pacing guide. That
helps me know what I need to teach at what time during the school year” (September
2015). I prompted Alice to tell me about her lesson plans, and she told me that is it
school district requirement that lessons be written in an Explicit Direct Instruction (EDI)
format. After review of my field notes I asked for clarification of this format, Alice
described her lesson plans as:
57
“The EDI we are required to teach in the classroom is set up with several parts to
a lesson. We begin by activating prior knowledge of students by posing a
question about the upcoming lesson or asking them to remember something the
students can use to make a connection to the upcoming learning. The mini lesson
is when teachers directly explain or model the concept/standard being taught, so
there is no guessing on the part of the students as to what they are supposed to be
learning. We then have guided practice on the concept with the teacher and
students working together to develop the understanding of what is being
taught. Then students have the chance to independently practice, with the teacher
monitoring their progress and intervening when necessary to reteach or correct
misconceptions. The lesson is then closed with another question for the students
to restate or reflect on their learning” (June 2017).
Finally, I asked Alice about weekly and daily planning for instruction. She told
me that she plans only reading instruction for the entire third grade team, while each
other member of the team plans a different subject. When I observed planning sessions,
each session began with each teacher sharing the standard they would be planning for the
next week. I noted in my notes that this sharing portion took about ten minutes per
meeting. Alice would share the reading standard and story for the next week, then the
other team members would quickly share their subject plans. As the team leader, Alice
would then write those standards and plans in a template to be provided to administration
after the meeting was over. (See Appendix F for meeting agenda template). By
Thursday of each week, team members were responsible for providing EDI lesson plans,
an accompanying SMART Board presentation, and copies of assignments needed for the
58
next week. When asked why this was the practice for planning, Alice indicated that
“[this procedure] helped distribute responsibilities among the team so that teachers did
not feel overwhelmed with the amount of work that goes into planning for all the subjects
taught each day” (September 2015).
When discussing daily planning, Alice said, “Every afternoon, I look over my
weekly lesson plans and create an agenda page for the next day with SMART Board
[presentations] attached” (September 2015). She indicated that she planned for the use of
a SMART Board presentation for most of the lessons she taught.
At the conclusion of the initial interview, Alice told me she had limited
experiences with service-learning. As indicated in the quote below, she described her
experiences to be “very superficial.” She said,
“[In the past] we have chosen an organization; they have come in and talked with
the students, and we generally have raised money or collected donations for the
organization…There wasn’t much depth to the projects and students don’t really
get to see where their donations go and they don’t make a connection to the
organization” (September 2015).
Alice also went on to describe her expectations and goals for the upcoming
Katie’s Krops project. She wanted to see the students really involved in giving back to
the community and wanted to be a motivated teacher that engages her students outside of
the classroom, using real world applications. She told me, “It’s centered around the
standards and the things they can learn around doing a service for others, more global.
Like, we might be using the garden, but what can they learn other than just how to
garden, they can do the math and the community part of giving back” (September 2015).
59
Along with her goals, Alice also knew that there would be some obstacles. The biggest
one would be time. She was afraid that if she spent too much time on the project she
would be missing out on classroom instruction time of the standards. She also said, “An
obstacle would be not knowing much about gardening or keeping plants alive. I will also
need to make a shift in where teaching and learning should take place. I’ve had twenty
years of “classroom” teaching, and being comfortable with moving the learning outside
will be a challenge.”
Amanda
My initial interview with Amanda gave me insight into her planning strategies.
She also used the district pacing guide to see what needed to be taught next. “I also
research through Pinterest, Teacher Pay Teacher, and Teacher Notebook for various
activities.” Amanda plans word study and writing for the third-grade team, and she says
she likes to have several ideas before she makes her final decision on what to use in the
classroom. Each week she is responsible for creating a SMART Board presentation,
lesson plans, and a weekly assessment for word study and writing. When planning she
has to think about her students, “I have a very busy and active classroom, so it is
important to plan a lot of movement. And I have a range of academic levels in my room
so I have to make sure that I give enough explicit instruction” (September 2015). She
further explained this explicit instruction and she explained, “It’s just instruction where I
am giving direct teaching and instruction. Walking the students through the process and
really outlining each part of what I want them to know.”
Amanda shared with me her previous experiences with service-learning as well.
She told me,
60
“Last year was my first year with service-learning and I felt that I had no
knowledge of it [the project] and was just included in the outcome without
actually being a part of it. Our fifth graders took the recycling bins out of each
room in the school and dumped it into a recycling dumpster. All I had dedicated
in this was that I had to pick four kids out of my class to participate. I also made
sure my kiddos were recycling the correct things and getting them into the
recycling bin. It was minimal effort on my part. I did not feel that it was as
successful as it could have been…the kids just didn’t have any real connection to
it. They didn’t see the full circle or where the paper went or what happened to it”
(September 2015).
At the beginning of this project, Amanda was very motivated to make this
experience better than her previous year’s project. She told me, “I want to push myself to
be more involved than I was last year with my first service-learning project… [I want it
to be] a weekly thing that my students are contributing to and not something that falls on
the back burner.” She was very excited, and seemed willing to really get involved in
every step of the project. Amanda finished by saying, “I don’t really see any obstacles.
The students are motivated and want to make this successful. The teachers are 100
percent behind the project as well.” This gave me confidence that Amanda and the other
teachers would really work to make the project successful.
Lydia
Lydia did not participate in one on one interviews so I did not have an initial
interview with her. She did not feel that she could give me the extra time necessary for
these interviews, due to personal reasons. However, through observations of planning
61
meetings I was able to understand that she was responsible for planning Science and
Social Studies for the third-grade team. Every few weeks, Science and Social Studies
would alternate so that she was only planning one unit at a time. It was evident that
Lydia primarily used the pacing guide and previous year’s units to plan. During planning
meetings, she would say, “I put the unit folder from last year on Dropbox,” or “The next
unit scheduled is the Civil War.”
During a focus group, I was able to ask Lydia her definition of service-learning,
and she explained that it was a way for students to learn how they can give back to the
community. She also said, “I don’t do it as a way to bring in any type of academic plans
or anything.”
Callie
I first met Callie in the summer of 2016. She was a new addition to the third-
grade team at Southside Elementary School. She moved to the area from Chicago where
she was also a third-grade teacher. Because I was on a leave of absence at the beginning
of the 2016-2017 school year, our initial interview was conducted after the school year
began. Like the other initial interviews, we first discussed her planning strategies for
daily instruction. She mentioned the pacing guide that recommends when to teach certain
standards and she used that to guide her planning. She also said, “The district also
provides us with the ATLAS website which I use for resources.” ATLAS is a resource
where SMARTboard presentations, lesson plans, and assessments are uploaded for
teachers throughout the district to use when teaching academic standards. Callie was
responsible for the math plans each week for the third-grade team. She would share the
next week’s standards at the beginning of the planning meetings and would provide
62
teachers with the plans, SMART Board presentation, and copies by Thursday of each
week. When she planned, she would use the pacing guide to find out what standards
came next, and then used the district resources as well as her own previous teaching
experience to pull activities together.
When service-learning was brought up in our conversation, it was clear that Callie
did not have much knowledge of service-learning or of Katie’s Krops, even after the
school year began. This showed that the teachers were not yet planning for the garden.
In our initial conversation, Callie told me she could not answer a few of the
questions because she did not know anything about service-learning or Katie’s Krops.
She had never worked in a school that implemented service-learning, and she had never
used a garden to teach. I asked her what she thought service-learning should look like in
her classroom, her response was, “I do not know enough about it to answer the question.”
I tried to ask a different question instead, I asked, “How do you think your students will
be impacted by this project?” Callie told me, “I hope they learn to understand what it
means to volunteer. To give something of yourself with no expectation of an award. I
would also want them to work well together and synergize” (September 2016). To
conclude our initial interview she said, “I don’t know what Katie’s Krops are, if we are
supposed to have lessons planned around it. I guess we should talk about it at our
[planning] meeting.” This conversation led me to believe that Callie did not understand
service-learning as a teaching tool to implement academic standards, she thought of it as
volunteer opportunities for her students to help the community. She was also unaware of
Katie’s Krops and the grant that was received by the school the previous year.
63
2015-2016 School Year
Our first planning session occurred on September 16, 2015. It was determined
that the wood to build new raised beds would be donated by a business partner, and that
business partner would come to the school to help the students build. Unfortunately, the
week when that business partner was scheduled to come and meet with teachers, there
was a storm causing major flooding in the area. This caused school to be canceled for an
entire week, and put teachers a week behind in their pacing guides provided by the
district. Garden building was put on hold until teachers felt less overwhelmed with
regular instruction, and they could meet again with the business partner. I met with
teachers on December 9, 2015 to discuss the building of the garden, and it was
determined that the deadline for the building of new raised beds would be January 30,
2016. Over winter break, construction on a new roof on the school began. To allow
construction vehicles into the school area, part of the garden was disassembled. This,
again put garden building on hold, thus preventing data collection during that time. The
roof was still not completed when I met with teachers again on February 9, 2016. Finally,
in March, the roof was complete, and the raised beds were built by Alice’s class. At the
end of March 2016, teachers met to discuss how they were going plant in the garden.
Alice and Lydia were to meet on a Saturday morning to purchase soil and seedlings from
Home Depot. Since Alice’s class was involved in building, tomato, eggplant, squash, and
pepper crops were planted by Lydia and Amanda’s classes. Lydia’s class did most of the
watering and weeding for the rest of the school year.
64
Alice
When the project started, Alice’s class oversaw the building of raised beds in the
garden because they had a business partner in the community willing to donate their time
and the materials to help build. Alice contacted the business partner in September of the
first year of the project; a plan was discussed for them to join the class to build the boxes
in October. As previously stated, the building was put on hold. In December, I asked
how the project was going and Alice said, “My class is still on hold because I still have
the business partner that is interested, but I don’t know what we want…I’m not sure
where to go from here, I’m not sure exactly what we need.” The boxes did not get built
until March of that school year. During the build, I could observe only part of the process
that occurred in the garden. Alice’s plans were for the process to take an entire week to
complete. She first taught the area and perimeter standards using the EDI format, she
used the SMART Board to show examples of perimeter and area and taught the students
how to use the formulas to find the values of regular rectangles and squares. She used
Figure 4.1. Image of garden in March 2016
65
examples to allow the students to practice with her guidance. Then during the
independent practice phase of the lesson, students worked in groups to design the garden
on grid paper; they used their area and perimeter standards to determine how many boxes
would fit in the total area of the garden space. Each group wrote a set of directions on
how to design the garden and assemble the boxes. The group with the best set of
directions was to become the lead group and oversee the other groups in the garden to
build the boxes the way they imagined. However, this initial plan was not enacted due to
her classroom management struggles once the class was outside in the garden.
When the business partner arrived with the materials on March 16, 2016, Alice
allowed the entire class of 24 students to work in the garden together building the boxes.
I noticed students that were not engaged in the process, sitting in the grass waiting for
instructions. There were students playing tag because they did not have a job to do yet.
There were two rubber mallets being used to pound the pegs of the panels into the
ground, which meant that only two students could be using them at a time. Two students
would hold the panels together as one would use the rubber mallet. This process engaged
about six of the 24 students at a time. Because only a small number of students could be
engaged at a time, and the teacher and business partner needed to supervise those
students, it appeared difficult to manage the process, and the class was brought back
inside after twenty minutes. Alice had a student teacher working in her classroom at the
time, so the class stayed inside to work on more math standards while Alice took small
groups outside to build one box at a time. By the end of the process, there were only
three students outside working with the business partner because they were well-behaved
and highly interested in the building process. When asked about planning this process,
66
Alice told me that it was something she could spend time planning because she had a
student teacher in the classroom and she could “fit it in without it being something extra.”
She could spend the time trying to get in contact with the business partner, she could
spend the time developing the in-depth plan to teach area and perimeter using the garden
boxes, and she could take small groups of students outside. Having a student teacher and
a business partner to help manage the process made the garden build possible.
Building the raised beds was the only time that Alice worked outside in the
garden with her class that first year. She indicated,
“I’m not sure of what really would work well in the garden to get the plants to
grow and what would need to be done. It is hard to set groups up ahead of time
with expectations and tasks assigned to keep everyone engaged. I think if I
personally knew more and was more interested in the whole gardening thing, then
I would make more of an effort to use it for learning” (April 2016).
Alice also stated in one of our conversations, “I have gone out there with the
entire class just to have lots of complaining and arguing over tools and tasks. It was not
enjoyable for most or myself” (May 2016).
When Alice and I discussed over-all planning for the project she told me that the
only thing she really planned for was using perimeter and area standards for allowing
students to design the garden boxes. She said, “I had to plan for it because other people
were involved” (April 2016). To conclude the first year of data collection, Alice talked a
lot about how she learned about gardening with the students and that she realized that
many standards could be taught and demonstrated with the use of this project. She had
two thoughts for the next school year, first she said, “Next year, I will focus more on
67
researching which vegetables grow better in the fall and in the spring. The garden will be
maintained on a regular basis by students with the goal of harvesting vegetables to donate
to Katie’s Krops.” Secondly, she added, “I am excited about this next group of students
that will be able to work with the garden the entire year and learn the importance of doing
something to help benefit others” (May 2016).
Amanda
Although Amanda had established her goals to be more involved, and she was
highly motivated at the beginning, that quickly dissipated as the school year progressed.
I asked Amanda what standards were covered in the garden, and she said that students
created and analyzed graphs, and that area and perimeter were covered when creating the
space for the garden. During this interview, it was apparent that she shared with me what
the other third grade classes were doing, but not what she did in her classroom. She told
me she only used her transition time returning to the classroom after recess to stop at the
garden and talk about measuring or graphing. She did not spend much time outside at
these times, nor did she graph the results of her measuring. She used it as practice for her
students using a ruler. In a planning meeting, Amanda stated, “I could cut recess short
and take them to the garden, spend a few minutes out there. I also feel like this is okay to
take away math time, I mean that’s what we are doing. Its hands-on math, I think its ok,
they [administration] should not have a problem with this” (September 2015). It was
apparent that Amanda was apprehensive about being off the schedule assigned to her by
the administration. It is an expectation that teachers follow the schedule put in place at
the beginning of the school year. Amanda believed that if it was her scheduled math
68
time, she should be in the classroom teaching the content provided by the pacing guide
and other district materials.
During the first year of the project, since the garden was not built until March, the
students only had two months left of school. In this time, they were able to plant and see
some growth, but only a limited number of crops were ready to harvest before the
students left for the summer. Amanda’s class planted pepper and squash seedlings at the
end of March. Amanda felt at the end of the first year, even though she was not overly
involved, the garden was successful because it was built and students could plant and
watch the seedlings grow. She was excited to continue using the garden the next year.
Lydia
During our first planning meeting in September 2015, Lydia shared that she had
one small garden box where she already planted broccoli on school grounds. She had the
seedlings and planted them so her students could try the vegetables. It was discussed in
that meeting that teachers could take their classes out there to observe the broccoli.
During that meeting, Lydia also said that she and her students could measure the growth
of the broccoli. I suggested that maybe those data could be used to do some graphing.
Teachers agreed with this idea, and then it led to the discussion of building a bulletin
board out where the new garden would be built so teachers could display their data. I
also suggested that the students could do some persuasive writing to the principal to get
permission to build that board. Lydia responded to my suggestion by saying that there
was not the time for that and that she was just going to take care of it herself. That board
out by the garden was never built, but a graph was displayed in the building and Lydia
kept track of the data points on it. This interaction helped me understand Lydia’s
69
understanding of service-learning as well. She did not feel as though she could give up
time from the standard curriculum to integrate student projects.
Lydia did create a graph for the bulletin board located in the third-grade hallway.
During recess visits, she measured the growth of the broccoli plants and then she graphed
the results on the bulletin board. The broccoli was harvested in December, and the graph
was on display until the end of the school year. At the end of March, Lydia’s class
planted tomato, eggplant, and squash seedlings in the new garden boxes. Her class did
most of the watering and weeding that first spring.
2016-2017 School Year
After the first school year ended, the garden became overgrown which delayed
the start of the project for the next school year. It was agreed that a parent who worked
with a local church would bring her church group of kids to the school to maintain the
garden over the summer. The garden was not maintained by the church group and
because teachers were not there over the summer, it became overgrown.
The overgrown dead crops were cleaned out in September of the next school year,
but nothing was planted for the fall. The second year, 2016, Hurricane Matthew also
caused hindrances in the garden. School was canceled for a week, and the seedlings left
outside were destroyed. On November 11, 2016, as a part of the Day of Caring,
volunteers from the community came to amend the garden because the grass between the
beds became overgrown during the summer, and vegetables could not be planted in its
condition. Each year local companies participate in a Day of Caring event during which
employees volunteer their time to schools and charities. During this event, volunteers
rebuilt the garden boxes and added mulch to the area surrounding the boxes and the
70
garden area. After initial mulch was spread, students in all four classes took turns going
out to the garden to add more mulch and fill boxes with soil. Lettuce, scallions, and kale
were planted by Lydia’s class for the winter and were donated to Katie’s Krops. As the
second school year ended, tomatoes, peppers, watermelon, and eggplant were planted by
all classes, and a better plan was created for summer care. Lydia was going to maintain
the garden over the summer.
Alice
The second year was more of a struggle for Alice. There is no evidence to
suggest that Alice used the garden again for academic standard based lessons. Instead of
taking the entire class out to the garden for any length of time, Alice allowed well
behaved students to join another teacher to work in the garden. She told me, “I have
trained small groups of students on my expectations for weeding, watering, planting,
Figure 4.2. Image of garden rebuilt in November 2017.
This shows students working to fill in mulch and add soil
to new boxes.
71
when the rest of the class was in special area. I would then let those students complete
the tasks necessary” (June 2017). Alice admitted to not starting the school year thinking
about the project; it was not something she discussed with her new group of students
from day one. This delay in implementation may have been caused by my personal leave
of absence from the school building. I was not able to check in regularly with teachers
about their project, which may have caused them to neglect the project more. I asked
Alice to tell me about her planning for this second year, in terms of the project. She told
me,
“I have not made specific plans, it just kind of happens when we notice something
as we walk past, or when it was our turn to tend to the garden…in my room we
simply do what we are told that needs to be done. Other classes have used it for
research of what to plant at what times and what to make with vegetables” (April,
2017).
She also stated that,
“So far, this year, it has been more of a chore type of feel when it is our turn to
weed and water the garden. I do not think I have really shared and taught the
importance of service to the community, and I know I have not used the garden
and other activities associated with it to really teach the students lessons other
than of responsibility” (April 2017).
Our last few conversations really helped me understand Alice’s struggles with the
project. The first year she had a very clear expectation to build four raised beds in the
garden space. She was able to accomplish that with the help of a business partner and her
student teacher. There were very specific standards that could be used to help the
72
students be involved. However, the second year, the garden was already built and she did
not know how to get her students involved. She told me that planning for service-
learning was different because of the amount of management planning to keep the kids
involved and engaged when outside. She believed activities done in the classroom were
easier to control rather than being outside in the garden. She always mentioned that she
did not possess the knowledge of gardening and she relied on her fellow teachers for
instruction. She admitted that this project was never at the forefront of her mind, and she
wanted to work on that. She wanted the garden to be an extension of her classroom, and
she envisioned it being a more encompassing type thing, more than just teaching kids
how to garden. She believed that she was not very good at it because she could not get
herself to think about it in that way. She shared with me, “I seem to piece meal it when it
comes up, yea we can do this and we can do that, instead of it being like a unit based
thing. I want it to be an extension of my classroom so anytime there is a standard I can
say we can go out to the garden and do this” (April 2017).
As a team, we often discussed how they could improve on their planning for
future use of the garden. Alice was always willing to reflect on her own choices and was
very open about her lack of success. Her reflection of her lack of knowledge allowed her
to make some suggestions for future planning. Alice added, “I think as a grade level we
never really thought of the whole picture. And everything involved with it.” She meant
that there was no long-range plan, and teachers did not think about overall goals for the
project. They each had individual goals for themselves, but they did not discuss those
goals together. Alice suggested, “We should start in the summer time, and if it were one
person’s responsibility for the first quarter to set up plans, we might have better results.”
73
Alice talked about her lack of content knowledge more than other obstacles.
Alice told me, “I have tried looking into it on the internet, but I am still not sure what I’m
reading half the time. I think if I personally knew more and was more interested in the
whole gardening thing, then I would make more of an effort to use it for learning” (May
2017). The other obstacle she mentioned was the expectations from administration. She
knew that she had to cover standards, and the principal wanted different parts of the
Leader in Me program to be the focus. Subsequently, she felt that the service-learning
project was not important for administration because they did not follow up on their
efforts. She told me,
“As we go through each year in Leader in Me, different things take focus. The
focus of year is, I guess, what admin wants to look at, and we were weak in goal
setting last year, so this year they have been pushing goal setting. So, if next year,
it’s the service-learning then that would be our expectation, and then that would
be something that would drive us to do it” (April 2017).
Once the project was underway, Alice struggled, and she believed it was because
she was not interested in gardening, nor did she know how to garden. In one of her
interviews she stated,
“It’s overwhelming because it’s one of those things that, I don’t know, I’m not
passionate about. I want the kids to learn it, but I don’t personally care, which is
hard for me, because I was going to look what should be planted in the winter, but
I got bored with it and I couldn’t understand it, and the charts and tables didn’t
make sense. It’s just not something I liked” (April 2017).
74
Alice stated several times over the course of the project that she wished
she knew more about gardening and wished that she could learn more on her own
about how to garden so that she felt more confident about teaching the students.
Amanda
Even at that start of the new school year in 2016, Amanda’s motivation peaked
and her goals reemerged. She stated that, “I feel the students did not get a chance to
share [vegetables with the community] and next year, I will make sure that the most
important part, helping and sharing with our community play a major role in the project”
(May 2016).
She had many ideas on how to incorporate the garden into her classroom, but she
never seemed to find the time to get to it. In several planning meetings she suggested
several ways that the garden could be used, she thought they could use the garden during
their science unit on soil, or they could discuss adaptations of plants because only some
plants grow in the southeast. Although she had some ideas, she never took them into
account when planning for those units. This may have been neglected because she was
not responsible for planning the Science units, so when the units came up, she used the
plans and SMART Boards provided to her by another teacher.
Amanda’s biggest struggle was feeling pressure to meet other expectations that
were set for her as a teacher. She told me,
“I have absolutely no time in the day to do it. And I am trying to keep my kids,
and I am trying to hit every standard so I don’t have the time scheduled, with my
class this year, I don’t. If I am not granted the time, it’s not gonna happen. We
have gone out there one time, and it’s frustrating cause I’d love to do it but there
75
is so much on our plate as teachers that the time that I want to put out there,
something else comes up on the plate, and I can’t get to it” (April 2017).
Amanda felt that administration at the school did not focus on the service-learning
projects and focused more on other things like having students set their academic goals
and putting together leadership/data notebooks. Amanda told me, “We are trying to get
our kids to do academic goals, we’re trying to do leadership, and leadership binders seem
to be more of a priority than a service-learning project.” Leadership binders are data
notebooks that are kept by each student in the school. Students set personal and
academic goals and keep track of their progress over the course of the year. Their grades
are kept in these notebooks as well. Amanda explained that she felt she had to put other
obligations before the service-learning project. When it was time for Amanda’s class to
complete tasks in the garden, she used her recess time. She told me, “I used recess time in
the garden because I had limited time to get the curriculum across so I felt I needed more
time in the classroom with the kids than out in the garden. But at the same time, if I
knew how to use the garden in multiple ways to help include the curriculum then I would
have done that” (May 2017).
In April of 2017, Amanda took her class to the garden to harvest some lettuce.
She had been asked by Lydia if she wanted to harvest it with her class so they could have
an opportunity to work in the garden. Lydia showed Amanda how to harvest the lettuce
after school, and the next day when passing the garden, Amanda and her students brought
the lettuce back to the classroom. Amanda took the lettuce home and made taco salad to
share with her class and the other third grade classes. Each student who wanted to try the
salad was able to enjoy some of the garden harvest.
76
Over the course of two years, it was difficult to for Amanda to take the initiative
and participate in the service-learning project. She felt that she needed more time, and
more direction from her colleagues on what exactly to do in the garden and in her
classroom. Amanda told me, “There is not much happening in my classroom, when we
were told to do something like weed and water, we took care of it.”
Lydia
During the second year, her class was most involved in the garden, she seemed to
take a leadership role for the team. She was the one to offer advice to the other teachers
about maintenance tasks to be completed in the garden. During planning meetings Lydia
suggested that the garden should be watered every day, unless it rained, and then the
teachers decided they would each be responsible for a week of watering. Lydia also
suggested that the garden should be weeded a few times a week, or that the kale was
ready to be harvested. She also showed the teachers how to harvest the plants so they
could take their classes outside the next day.
Lydia told me that if she had to write a lesson plan for service-learning she would
not participate as much. She stated that she would not want to come up with lessons for
each subject that included the garden, but she knew that it could be integrated if she had
the time. She said, “Everything just seemed to blossom from getting it started and once it
got started they get to taste it” (March 2017). Lydia mentioned that everything she did
was “off the cuff,” and whatever needed to be done she just did with her class. There was
no real planning for the project. She mentioned that she always used her recess time
because it was twenty minutes and the students were still being active.
77
Lydia used her interactions with her students to further allow them to explore the
use of the garden and the crops. For example, while observing Lydia’s class in March
2017, I watched as students harvested the kale to donate to Katie’s Krops. Lydia allowed
the students to weight the harvest which came to 24 lbs. One student claimed, “What is
this, I’ve never had this.” Lydia answered the student’s question, and then told the
students that they could look for a recipe and then they could make it and try it as a class.
Students went back to the classroom, and during center time, students could use the
classroom iPads to look for a recipe to try. The next day, Lydia then assigned a writing
assignment; the students had to write a recipe card that was going to be sent with the kale
when it was donated so that people receiving the kale would know how they could
prepare it for their families. The students opted to make kale salad with strawberries for
the class to share. However, the written portion of the activity was never completed. The
recipe cards were never finished or sent with the donation.
When asked why the project was not completed, Lydia said, “the students had
difficulties writing the procedures on their recipes, and I felt that the cards needed to be
redone.” Unfortunately, time played a role in this, and the cards were never redone and
were not completed. Lydia indicated that the experience was not about the recipe and the
writing for her, “it was about getting them to try something, and it was their choice so
they wouldn’t be afraid to try something else that’s green” (April 2017). Although, the
cards were not completed, this was the most successful integration of the garden with
academic standards. The students had an experience, followed up with research, and
began the writing process. The outcome of this activity matched Lydia’s personal goals
78
she established for the garden project, which were for students to try new vegetables and
give back to the community.
Callie
Even after our initial conversation, Callie was still not overly involved in the
project. In one interview, I asked how the project was going and she stated, “I guess it is
good, I’m not super involved.” I also asked if students are involved in the planning of the
garden and she responded, “Not in the planning, that I know of, but I think they do all of
the work during the year.” While talking about planning for the project, Callie told me
that she did not plan anything, when something needed planted, watered, or harvested,
the teachers just took turns doing it. She also admitted to not using the project at all to
meet state standards. She did follow with, “But I am sure it could be interwoven into the
curriculum.”
Callie had very limited answers to the questions, until we talked about the subject
of time. She was persistent that time was the most limiting factor in the implementation
of a service-learning project. Callie stated, “I stay after school each day until 4:00 to be
sure my math planning obligations are completed or to attend meetings, but then when I
leave here the work stays at school, and I have to fulfill mom expectations at home.”
Callie believed that there were so many other things that administration expected them to
do that service-learning got pushed to the end, because it did not seem as important as
other obligations. She stated that to be successful in service-learning she needed, “Time
that we will never get.” I asked her to clarify and she told me,
“I mean that our scheduled planning time is only 40 minutes a day, and after we
go to the bathroom, get a drink, there’s not much time left. I don’t get to plan
79
much during our meeting time because we have tasks, notes, and other things to
do for administration, and I don’t think we’ll ever have enough time because they
just keep adding more and more extra work for us” (May 2017).
In our final conversation, I asked Callie again what service-learning looked like in
her classroom. She admitted to not knowing much about the garden until months into the
school year, and then struggled to get her class involved for the last half of the year. She
told me,
“I knew nothing about Katie’s Krops, I just assumed it was a garden that third
grade did, and we harvested things for ourselves because everyone was out there
picking peppers and everything. So, then I didn’t know anything about Katie’s
Krops so I didn’t have any goals or expectations. Then I kind of gathered through
hear-say about what we needed to do with the garden; then I started figuring it
out, but I didn’t understand what it was when we first started” (April 2017).
Callie knew that she did not implement the service-learning project, and she
finished her first year by stating that over the summer she would go to the Katie’s Krops
website to learn more and next year she will do a better job being involved.
Planning Sessions
Throughout the course of two academic years, I attended ten planning sessions
with the teachers during which they discussed their service-learning project. In the first
year, due to the late building of the garden, I only attended three planning sessions where
the service-learning project was discussed. The second year, I attended seven planning
sessions. Although planning sessions were held weekly during the school year (38
meetings), the service-learning project was only discussed at eight of those meetings. I
80
was unable to attend one of those meetings because of an illness. Each planning session
was held on Tuesday after school in Alice’s classroom. There was an agenda for each
meeting, and afterward, minutes were submitted to administration (see Appendix F for
agenda template). If service-learning was to be discussed during a meeting, it was added
to the agenda.
At the start of each meeting, each teacher would share the standard they were
planning for the upcoming week, and Alice would fill in the agenda. For example, on
December 6, 2016, Alice shared that students would be reading holiday stories and
focusing on academic standards involving compare and contrast, sequencing, and asking
and answering questions. Then Callie shared that she would be planning for addition and
subtraction using word problems review in math. Amanda shared that they will be
focusing on holiday words in word study and writing explanatory pieces in writing.
Finally, Linda shared that they would be finishing up animal habitats and adaptations in
science. After each teacher shared what they were planning for each subject, they moved
on to discussing administrative tasks or upcoming events.
During service-learning discussions, teachers would ask questions about what
needed to be done in the garden or I would offer suggestions to help. In our first
planning session in September 2015, I suggested that students could write persuasive
letters to administration to ask for permission to build a bulletin board out by the garden.
The response I received from Lydia was that there was not enough time for that and she
would just ask for permission and build it herself. Unfortunately, that board was never
built outside, but data was displayed on a bulletin board in the building. Also, on
December 6, 2016, I suggested that students could do research to find places to take the
81
donations. Students could create scripts to use if they were to call the organizations to
ask if they needed donations. (See Appendix G for meeting agenda). Unfortunately, this
research was never conducted, and all donations were given directly to Katie’s Krops,
who donated the harvest to a local food pantry. More typically, the service-learning
discussions involved assigning planting, weeding, watering, or harvesting duties to
teachers and their classes. For example, on April 18, 2017, it was discussed that the team
would meet at Home Depot on Saturday morning to buy more soil, and Amanda would
harvest the lettuce and weigh it. I included examples of the meeting agendas in the
appendices to show the limited time spent on planning for the project and how that
planning did not necessarily focus on planning for academic content but rather only the
maintenance of the garden.
Administration Role
Because the teachers consistently mentioned the expectations of the
administration playing a role in their experiences, I decided to interview the principal,
Lucy. I scheduled two interviews to gain her insight into the teachers’ planning and
implementation of service-learning. She told me that the expectation came through the
Leader in Me program, and the whole point is trying to encourage students to be leaders
and help them understand the “real world.” She believed that we live in a “me, me,
society,” and she wanted to teach students to give, without getting anything in return.
She felt that students lived in an environment where they learned everything is about
them, and believed that the students needed service-learning to ground them.
She told me that the “intent was that the students would select it [a project], the
students would be involved every single step of the way” (January, 2016). At our second
82
interview, she did state again how strongly she felt when she adopted the Leader in Me
program that service-learning had to be a part of who they were as a school community
but she also added, “I don’t know as though I’ve done a really good job of driving home
exactly why [we do service-learning], I think we did in the beginning, but I don’t know if
some of them [teachers] are just going through the motions.” She observed teachers just
doing service-learning to just check it off their list, but she knew that it was not that they
did not care, but that she needed to keep reminding them and bring them back to the
purpose.
I asked Lucy about the obstacles that she found her teachers were facing in terms
of planning for service-learning. She believed that teachers’ inability to give up control
and allow for greater student involvement to be a major obstacle. The principal believed
that students should be the ones making phone calls, writing the invitations and doing the
research, doing the thank you follow ups and reporting data. She found that most
teachers tended to make the phone calls themselves because they cannot make the time to
have the students do it.
Another obstacle teachers faced was staying motivated when they could not
communicate with the organization with whom they wanted to work. She stated, “if a
grade level didn’t get a response through one means of trying to get somebody, they’d tell
me they sent three emails and nobody is responding, and then they’d give up” (May
2017). When teachers experienced these setbacks, Lucy had to encourage the teachers to
try a different means of communication, like visiting the organization or calling them on
a telephone. She also stated that it seemed each school year started out great but it was
an obstacle for her to keep up and maintain the motivation of teachers.
83
I asked Lucy to tell me about the successful service-learning projects she has
observed over the years. She told me that the most successful projects were the projects
involving organizations who were reaching out to the schools. She stated, “When you
have that kind of synergistic attitude going on both sides then that little thing starts
humming along. When you don’t and when an organization doesn’t have somebody on
the other end supporting the efforts of the school, that’s when you start seeing it fall
down. Not because the teachers don’t have the desire to do it, they just don’t know how”
(May 2017).
When I asked Lucy about the planning strategies she observed teachers using, she
revealed that she did not see many teachers using any planning strategies. She said, “It
tells you that the adults in the building aren’t used to giving back, in a process way” (May
2017). She indicated that she believed it was because teachers were planning something
with which they were unfamiliar. So, it caused a struggle. She suggested that teachers
need to have a long-range plan focused on service-learning and they need to plan how the
service-learning is going to fit into their school day, whether it be during a subject area
time or morning meeting time. She also suggested that every teacher needs to have
ownership and commitment to the project so the responsibilities should be split up
between members of the grade level team based on their talents and interests. It would be
a good idea to have a leader, but the downfall to having one leader is that everyone else
on the team then counts on that person to do everything.
Lucy also suggested that a service-learning project needs two sides, the teacher
side that understands the standards and the expectation of fitting the project into those
standards, but also the business side of things to understand how things work in the real
84
world. She shared that it is a struggle for teachers because, “we are now at a point of
teaching and in education right now, which I don’t always like, is that it’s all very
individualized, it’s hard for teachers to bring it all together” (May 2017). She knew that
teachers felt the need to meet standards first, and suggested that teachers need help to
bring a service-learning project and academic standards together. She suggested that
teachers should look at their standards and then find a few service-learning projects they
could integrate with those standards and then have the students choose a project.
Finally, I asked Lucy to tell me about the professional development opportunities
she provided to her teachers for service-learning. She shared that each teacher did
receive formal training through the Leader in Me program, but that training primarily
focused on the seven habits and how teachers can use those seven habits in their lives.
Service-learning was not a part of that training. Lucy also shared that she did not know
where to go to get professional development on service-learning. She thought it might be
a good idea for teachers who were successful to share their experiences in a faculty
meeting. She suggested, “Each year we had something work successfully, we should
have been reporting out to each other telling each other why did it work out, what went
well, what connectivity did we have that led to this being a successful commitment for
our grade level this year” (May 2017). Lucy admitted to not providing enough
professional development for her teachers in terms of service-learning planning and
implementation.
Summary of Findings
Although teachers did have successes in the garden, they felt there was more that
they could have done, but they had experiences along the way that prevented them being
85
successful in implementing a service-learning project. During planning sessions and
focus group discussions with the teachers, they all had effective ideas on how to plan for
service-learning projects and great ideas of how to incorporate academic standards into
the implementation of the project. Unfortunately, there did not seem to be follow-
through on these ideas, and the project was not successful and did not meet the teachers’
goals. Teachers had many experiences that influenced their perceptions, and their
planning strategies also influenced the implementation of the project. Teachers seemed
to perceive service-learning as a burden or extra work assigned to them, making the
implementation stressful and unsuccessful. Several reasons explain why teachers felt this
way. Those reasons included a lack of alignment between service-learning goals and
school, district, and state expectations, and a lack of content knowledge and pedagogical
knowledge.
86
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
Drawing from the data that were collected and analyzed, this chapter will address
the research questions of this study, compare the findings to scholarly literature, and
recommend plans for future research. The chapter will start with a summary of the
current study, then a reflection on the findings and research questions relating back to the
literature described in Chapter 2. I will provide some implications for service-learning in
elementary school. Finally, the chapter will conclude with the study’s limitations and
recommendations for further study.
Summary of Current Study
The purpose of this study was to explore, understand, and interpret how
elementary school teachers use service learning and to examine underlying factors that
shape and influence how teachers plan for and implement service learning projects. To
understand the phenomenon in context, I focused on two research questions: How does
elementary teachers’ instructional planning influence their understanding and
implementation of service learning? How are teachers’ perceptions and implementation
of service learning influenced during the use of a garden based program in the classroom?
This study is important because current literature focuses service-learning studies
on upper level education students and does not include many elementary school aged
students. Many studies focus on the necessary components for a successful service-
87
learning. Literature focuses mostly on the student benefits of teaching using GBL and
service-learning, but does not focus on teacher planning for using such pedagogical
methods. This study attempts to provide teachers and administrators at the elementary
level with suggestions to help support their planning for successful service-learning
projects.
Interpretive qualitative methods were used to collect data through a case study at
a southern elementary school with four third grade teachers implementing a service-
learning project with their students. Interviews, focus groups, and observations were
used to collect data over the course of two academic years. The teachers felt
unsuccessful in the implementation of their project, partly because their perceptions of
service-learning became negative. During the first planning sessions and initial
interviews, teachers were motivated and had positive expectations for their project. As
the study progressed, those perceptions of service-learning became more negative.
Several explanations were given for their negative experiences. Teachers described not
having the content or pedagogical knowledge necessary to plan for a garden based
service-learning project. Teachers felt that they did not have the necessary time for them
to professionally plan for and implement the service-learning project because other
obligations, like state standards, were more important to accomplish. The teachers had
negative perceptions of service-learning because of their lack of time and lack of content
and pedagogical knowledge. However, their lack of success was also influenced by their
planning strategies.
88
Reflection of the Findings
In this study, I looked at service-learning through an interpretive lens to
understand teachers’ perceptions and their planning and implementation of a service-
learning project. My goal was to develop theories as I interacted with the participants as
they experienced service-learning and made sense of their own experiences. I wanted to
recreate their stories through their perspectives in order to inform current service-learning
research. Through observations, interviews, and focus groups, I found that these teachers
did not successfully implement a service-learning project. According to literature,
service-learning is an experiential education method that integrates academic curriculum
with project-based learning while students are also working to accomplish real change in
the community (Eyler & Giles, 1999; Kielsmeier, 2004). These teachers only minimally
integrated academic curriculum into their project, missing one of the main requirements
of service-learning. However, the findings of this study do offer some explanations to the
difficulties teachers face when implementing a service-learning project.
These four teachers were faced with many situations that led them to be
unsuccessful in their planning for service-learning. There were circumstances out of their
control that caused hindrances in the gardening. In 2015, there was a major flood, that
canceled school for a week. At the beginning of 2016 the school’s roof was replaced, and
the garden area was used for construction vehicles. Finally, in 2017 Hurricane Matthew
canceled school for a week, putting garden plans behind schedule. I reiterate these
circumstances because teachers using a garden-based program cannot control the
weather. These difficulties that may have influenced the lack of success of the service-
89
learning project could not be controlled. These circumstances also may have influenced
the answers to the research questions.
Community Service
The definition of service-learning is an experiential education method that
integrates the academic curriculum with project-based learning while students are also
working to accomplish real change in the community (Eyler & Giles, 1999). Essential
components of effective service-learning include reflection, incorporating student voice
and involving community members (Billig, Root, and Jesse, 2005; Eyler, 2002; Ponder,
Vander Veldt & Lewis, 2011). Without these components, a project would be considered
community service (Astin, Vogelgesang, Ikeda, and Yee, 2000). In this study, it was
found that teachers’ goals were consistent with the definition of community service and
they were successful in meeting their goals of having students volunteer their time to
grow crops and donate them to people in need.
Although the project did not meet the expectations of true service-learning,
positive outcomes were found. Teachers established personal goals for their project and
were able to meet those goals. Alice’s goal was to build garden boxes, and she was able
to involve a business partner to do so. Lydia wanted her students to learn about nutrition
and try new vegetables, they tried fresh broccoli and kale salad. Amanda wanted her
students to give back to the community and they were able to harvest and donate lettuce
to families in need.
The teachers could also be considered successful in completing their grantee
requirements that were tied to the Katie’s Krops organization. During the winter growing
season, the garden at Southside Elementary School provided 24 pounds of kale, scallions,
90
and lettuce to people in need. Their goals and outcomes reflect the mission of Katie’s
Krops to empower young people to fight hunger in the community.
The principal’s (Lucy) purpose for requiring service-learning school wide was to
teach students to be leaders and give back in today’s society without asking for a reward.
This purpose matched the outcome of the project. According to Egeler’s (1993) study,
teacher planning decisions are influenced highly by professional expectations or
guidelines established by administration. Teachers at the school seemed to understand
Lucy’s overall purpose for service-learning. Each teacher wanted their students to
volunteer their time to give back to the community, and they did. Lucy’s understanding
of service-learning did include connecting to academic standards as she suggested
planning strategies in our conversation that included the standards. However, she
admitted to not providing her teachers with the professional development that they may
have needed. Because teachers did meet the administrator’s goal of establishing the
requirement of service-learning, this project can be considered successful. Based on
current literature, however, the project was missing consistent components to be
considered true service-learning.
How does elementary teachers’ instructional planning influence their understanding
and implementation of service-learning?
Overall, the way the planning meetings were established influenced the outcomes
of the service-learning project. Actual planning was not performed during these Tuesday
afternoon meetings. Ideas were brought to the meeting and discussed, but the lesson
planning was done individually by each teacher for the subject for which they were
responsible. McCutcheon’s (1981) study found that most teachers do not start with the
91
objectives of the lesson, but choose an activity selected from available sources such as
teacher editions, curriculum guides, or district issued materials. I found similar results in
this study. Each teacher used the district provided resources or previous year’s plans to
create universal plans for the entire team, but the service-learning project was not
included in those resources. Each teacher planned her subject in isolation to other
subjects, and no teacher was responsible for planning for the service-learning project.
There is little connection across subject areas, as each subject is planned in isolation and
is thus taught in isolation. This influenced the implementation of the project because it
was an after-thought that teachers had to try and fit in, which led to a lack of planning
and thus unsuccessful implementation of the service-learning project.
Southside Elementary School is in a district that requires teachers to teach
standards using an Explicit Direct Instruction (EDI) method. Direct instruction is often
used to describe intervention methods for special education or at-risk students (Kinder,
Kubina, & Marchand-Martella, 2005). The goal of direct instruction is for students to
reach mastery level before learning a new skill and is considered a teacher-centered
strategy (Al-Makahleh, 2011). “This strategy focuses on procedures followed by
teachers and the curriculum and identifies specifically and explicitly what skills need to
be learned step-by-step, instead of leaving the students to their own experience” (Al-
Makahleh, 2011, p.200). This strategy did not allow teachers to involve students in the
planning or decision making necessary for a successful service-learning project.
Teachers are responsible for showing the administration lesson plans for each lesson,
each day, written in EDI format. Alice explained that this model does not lead to student
exploration and deeper understanding of the standards being taught. This required
92
method of lesson planning influenced the implementation of service-learning because all
of the information could not have been given to the students at the beginning; students
should have a voice and be responsible for exploring the knowledge to make their project
successful (Billig, Root, and Jesse, 2005; Celio, Durlak, and Dymnicki, 2011; Morgan &
Streb, 2001).
Sandmann, Kiely, and Grenier (2009), focused their study on planning for a
service-learning course at the university level, but suggested that because service-
learning does not have a theoretical planning model to guide practice, teachers usually
resort to the linear, formulaic planning techniques. I did see the participants in this study
struggle with planning for service-learning, mainly because service-learning did not fit
into their planning model they were comfortable using on a weekly or daily basis. The
participants in this study had a lesson plan format that they were required to use for each
subject and each teacher used the same lesson plans for each subject area. These teachers
were not provided guidance through professional development or by Katie’s Krops for
the implementation of a service-learning experience.
Each time we met, teachers told me that there was no planning for the service-
learning project. Lydia said, “I did not plan, it all just happened kind of organically.”
Alice only planned for the initial building of the garden, she said, “I had to plan for it
because other people were involved.” Amanda said, “I’m not planning, I just take some
time when we are walking by the garden to weed or water if someone [Lydia] tells me
to.” When asked why there was no planning, the previously stated themes were brought
up in conversation again. Teachers believed they did not know enough to plan, or there
was not enough time to plan. When the principal was asked about the lack of planning,
93
she explained, “Teachers are planning for something they are not familiar with. It tells
you that the adults in the building aren’t used to giving back, in a process way, which
should be a learning curve for them, but that’s ok, let them learn.” The principal
acknowledged that teachers struggled with planning for service-learning, but did not
know what resources to use to provide professional development. She hoped that
teachers would be able to learn from each other.
After the second academic year of data collection, teachers began to reflect on
their planning strategies and began to think about alternative ways to better plan for the
project in the future. This reflective activity may have resulted from the focus groups
during which the researcher interacted with the teachers and prompted them to consider
service learning tenets. As stated in chapter 2, reflection or “reflective observation” is
necessary for learning (Kolb, 1984). Kolb (1984) defines reflection as an exercise to
understand and conceptualize the experience. According to Dewey (1997) reflection
leads to understanding through the observation of problems and testing various solutions.
Through reflection the teachers talked through what was not working and how to
effectively make some changes in their planning for next school year. With this level of
reflection, teachers should have begun to further develop an understanding of service-
learning.
Alice’s definition of service-learning was congruent with literature because she
understood that it was a connection to academic standards and more global than just
learning how to garden. However, her lack of gardening knowledge and lack of overall
interest in the project prevented her from integrating the project with her standards.
Since reading and writing instruction was Alice’s strength, if these subjects could be
94
further integrated into her planning of the service-learning project, she may have had
more success. She stated at our last focus group, “My thoughts are more that it’s
centered around the standards and the things they can learn around doing a service for
others, more global. Like we might be using the garden, but what can they learn other
than just how to garden, they can do the math and the community part of giving it back.”
Throughout the project, I believe Alice really gained a full understanding of service-
learning.
Lydia specifically stated that she was not involved in the project to bring in
academic standards but to ensure that students were able to try new vegetables and give
back to the community. However, according to her goals, Lydia was successful in her
garden project. She was able to plant seedlings with her class two years in a row, each
year the students were involved in maintenance tasks, and were able to weigh the harvest
before it was donated to those in need. These community service and volunteer tasks are
a valuable part of the project and should be considered an accomplishment.
Although she was not intending on integrating academic standards, Lydia’s
planning style with the project seemed to be the most successful in that integration. I
labeled Lydia’s “off the cuff” planning as emergent planning because it seemed that she
could create a lesson and activity as she felt the students were interested and engaged. It
seemed that her emergent curriculum was engaging for the students, but she could have
taken it farther and planned a writing lesson that focused on informative writing, which is
a standard in elementary school. She could have met academic standards easily, if her
goals matched the true definition of service-learning. Lydia’s background was science
and she was a member of the Master Gardener program. Her content knowledge of
95
gardening was evident, but her attitude towards planning seemingly constrained her from
a successful implementation of a true service-learning project. She stated several times
that if she was required to write lesson plans or plan something for each subject using the
garden she would not want to participate in service-learning.
Amanda’s understanding of service-learning remained focused more on the
community aspect over the course of two years. She did not seem to focus on academic
standards, but she did consistently tell me she wanted her students to be more involved.
Her expectation was for students to learn how to be leaders and give back to the
community. Unfortunately, because there was no academic planning in connection to the
project, Amanda did not further her understanding of service-learning. In order for a
project to be considered service-learning, it has to include a connection to academic
standards or objectives (Eyler & Giles, 1999). Amanda’s involvement in the project
increased in the spring of 2017. She was able to harvest and weigh the lettuce and share
a salad with her students.
Of concern, Callie’s definition of service-learning suggested that she knew
nothing about the project after school had started almost two months prior. This
knowledge led me to question whether the teachers were implementing the project during
those two months. I also questioned whether the goals or expectations of the project were
discussed in any planning meeting during that time. Throughout the project, Callie may
have not have gained an understanding of service-learning, but she did begin to
understand the goals of a Katie’s Krops garden. Callie’s future goals were for her
students to volunteer more and for students to see where the harvest was donated. She
96
also stated that she would need more time to be successful in implementing a service-
learning project.
As previously stated, the essential components of effective service-learning
include impacting the community, connecting academic standards, reflection,
incorporating student voice and involving community members (Billig, Root, and Jesse,
2005; Eyler, 2002; Ponder, Vander Veldt & Lewis, 2011). These teachers were
successful in impacting the community by helping students donate vegetables to families
in need. They minimally connected to writing standards and math standards, and Alice
involved a business partner to help build the garden. The one component that all the
teachers seemed to lack was reflection. There was no evidence found that teachers used
reflection as a tool in their service-learning project.
How are teachers’ perceptions and implementation of service-learning influenced
during the use of a garden-based program in the classroom?
Although teachers were successful in building, planting, and harvesting
vegetables from their garden, each teacher experienced different challenges. Some of
these challenges were influenced by the garden-based focus of the project. Teachers’
experiences were further limited by a lack of coherence between school and service-
learning goals, a lack of time, and their lack of content and pedagogical knowledge.
This project focused on using a garden-based program, although this may not
always be the basis of a service-learning project. The fact that a garden-based project
was used influenced Alice and Amanda significantly because they claimed to not possess
the content knowledge necessary to maintain a garden. As I shared in chapter 4, Alice
indicated that she did not have an interest in gardening, nor did she have the desire to
97
learn on her own about gardening. Amanda stated several times that she did not know
what to do in the garden unless Lydia offered her guidance. Perhaps their experiences
would have been different if a different type of project was implemented using a different
type of organization that was not garden focused.
The pressure teachers felt caused them to interpret the service-learning project as
extra work for them. Service-learning was perceived by most teachers as a burden or
extra work, and this perception created a unenthusiastic attitude towards service-learning
as a pedagogical strategy. Instead of teachers seeing the garden as a curricular tool to
meet state standards, using hands-on, real-life experiences, it was perceived as another
obligation or expectation from administration. Both Callie and Amanda shared that they
felt they could not dedicate their energy to the service-learning project because they had
other obligations to accomplish. This concern seemed to strengthen as the school year
progressed and more obligations were added to the teachers’ workload. The pressure was
at the highest when state mandated standardized testing was on the horizon.
Teachers had this concern, mostly because they did not feel they had the time
necessary to devote to planning a service-learning project, which was influenced by the
pressure they felt from their administrator. This led, ultimately, to a lack of planning for
any academic standards to be taught using the garden. This lack of planning is consistent
with current research. Studies show that planning was influenced mainly by state
regulations and expectations and guidelines established by administration (Egeler, 1993;
McCutcheon, 1981). These teachers perceived the state standards as being most
important and felt that administration was placing more emphasis on other obligations
rather than service-learning, so they spent their extra time devoted to those expectations.
98
Teachers felt that they were being required to implement something, without
feeling they had the time necessary to devote to planning. Time seemed to be the biggest
perceived inhibitor of implementing the service-learning project. A recent survey of
teachers in West Virginia illustrates that elementary school teachers’ instructional
planning is limited. Elementary educators reported the lowest average daily planning
time of 40 minutes when compared to middle and high school teachers. Middle school
and high school educators, on average, had an hour to an hour and a half of daily
planning time. It was also reported that elementary teachers have a higher number of
daily preps than middle and high school teachers, which calculates to teachers having
approximately nine minutes per prep to plan daily (Hixson, Stohr, & Hammer, 2013).
Finally, the data from the West Virginia survey further confirms the findings of this
study; teachers reported that their planning time is rarely used for instructional planning.
Teachers have meetings and other obligations that are mandatory during those 40 minutes
of planning time. For teachers to implement a service-learning project, teachers need to
feel that they are given the time during the workday to successfully plan for it. In this
study, Callie and Amanda both had young children at home who required their attention.
They were not able to prepare lessons, or research service-learning strategies after school
hours because they had other motherly obligations. This may be the reason for their
persistent mention of time being the biggest inhibiting factor. Alice and Lydia had older
children who did not require their attention. Although they felt pressure from
administration, time was not as much of a limiting factor.
There were additional underlying factors that led to that time issue. Teachers
were planning for something with which they were uncomfortable. They did not have the
99
content knowledge of the subject of gardening, nor did they have the pedagogical
knowledge to effectively implement a service-learning project. Studies suggest that
teacher knowledge influences teacher practices thus influencing student outcomes, and
professional development is crucial in developing the knowledge to change teacher
practice (Desimone, 2009; McCutchen et al, 2002; Spear-Swerling & Zibulsky, 2014).
Desimone (2009) suggests that professional development must be congruent with school
policies and expectations. In this school, the administration’s expectations were
perceived to be focused on the EDI lesson planning format and specifically the 7 Habits
and data notebook components of the Leader in Me program. Teachers put service-
learning aside while they met these expectations, leaving little time or energy to come
back to service-learning effectively. In sharp contrast, conversations with the principal
indicated that she believed standards should be met through service-learning. It was also
her expectation that teachers should be planning with standards and service-learning in
mind. She also understood that district and state policies led to a compartmentalized
curriculum and that teachers struggled to bring service-learning and academics together,
yet she did not provide professional development opportunities for her teachers to learn
new strategies. Without improving these teachers’ content and pedagogical knowledge,
or aligning expectations, having more time would not necessarily change the negative
perception that teachers already had.
Implications
This study adds to the current research because it focused on elementary teacher
practices rather than student outcomes. This study focused on how service-learning
impacts elementary teachers, an inquiry that appears to be missing from existing
100
literature. Service-learning cannot be taught in isolation from other subjects (Eyler &
Giles, 1999; Kielsmeier et al., 2004), nor is it a produced curriculum that teachers can
purchase and implement with a teacher manual and textbook (McCutcheon, 1980;
Sandmann, Kiely, and Grenier, 2009). There is not a universal model for planning
service-learning either at the university or elementary level (Sandmann, Kiely, and
Grenier, 2009; Whitley& Walsh, 2014).
In this study, although not consistently, Lydia used her interactions with her
students and the students’ interactions with the garden to engage students in further
activities. This emergent approach is based on the Reggio philosophy of early childhood
education. This philosophy is based on teachers not planning the outcomes, but the
outcomes growing organically from the students’ interaction with learning opportunities.
These learning opportunities may be in the form of free play, problem solving tasks, or
real-life experiences (Wien, 2008). This emergent curriculum may add to an elementary
specific planning model for service-learning.
For service-learning to be effective and beneficial for students as well as
meaningful for teachers, they may benefit from planning template. Additionally, they
need support from administration as well as the organizations they are servicing. Most
importantly they need professional development to learn how to implement such a
curricular tool.
Planning for Service-Learning
Billig (2000) suggests that “the differences in [service-learning] definition reflect
a division of opinion in the field regarding whether service-learning is a philosophy of
education, a curricular tool, or a program design” (p. 659). These differences may
101
influence planning strategies. Those who believe service-learning is a philosophy of
education may consider the role of schools as to develop responsible, caring citizens
(Billig, 200). Thus, they envision service-learning in terms of education reform. Those
who believe service-learning is a program design may use it as an elective for high school
students or an after-school program focused more on the community service aspect
(Billig, 2000). Drawing from the challenges that the teachers in this study faced, service-
learning at the elementary level should be considered a curricular tool that can be
integrated into the curriculum and aligned with standards. Making this purpose clear may
help to develop a clear planning model for teachers.
As with any curricular tool, it is important for teachers and instructors to plan for
the implementation of a service-learning project. The existing literature focusing on a
framework for service-learning is very limited. In 2009, Sandmann, Kiely, and Grenier
suggested that service-learning research fails to capture the planning and process
dimensions of programs. Although this study focused mainly on graduate level service-
learning programs, it can be related to other academic levels. They suggest that service-
learning is missing program theories to guide practice, and curriculum developers resort
to the linear, formulaic approaches such as Tyler’s model. In this study, teachers did not
use Tyler’s model, but did resort to their own planning strategies that did not transfer to
the planning of service-learning.
Sandmann, Kiely, and Grenier (2009) (See Figure 5.1) show that there is a need
for a planning model for service-learning, but neglect to include elementary programs in
their model. Planning for elementary students is different than graduate students, but this
model can be adapted and modified to help elementary school teachers plan for service-
102
learning (See Figure 5.2). As Sandmann, Kiely, and Grenier’s (2009) model shows,
planning for service-learning is not a linear, formulaic method. The arrows show that
every step of the process is connected, and the process may change as the project moves
forward.
The model (SLPPM) is centered around four partners. These partners include
students, faculty, community partners, and the higher education institution. Each partner
holds “a stake in the success of a service-learning program, all have influence over the
process, and all have interests to maintain and cultivate” (Sandmann, Kiely, & Grenier,
2009, p. 23). It is important that each partner is included in each of the proposed
dimensions within the planning process. “The goals and objectives of the service-
learning program should be derived from the shared goals and visions of the partners”
(Sandmann, Kiely, & Grenier, 2009, p. 27). In an elementary setting, these partners
Figure 5.1. Image of Sandmann, Kiely, and Grenier
(2009) service-learning program planning model
(SLPPM).
103
include students, teachers, community members or the organization being served, and
school administration. During the planning process, if each partner is recognized and
incorporated, the goals and expectations of each partner will be addressed alleviating
some of the pressure that was experienced by the teachers in this study. In my proposed
model (See figure 5.2), I added these goals to the center of the planning process. In order
for service-learning to be successful, the project must benefit all partners (Sandmann,
Kiely, & Grenier, 2009). By adding these goals to the center of the model, it reminds
teachers that they need to include students in the planning process, as well as their
administration and the community members with whom they work.
For teachers in this study, the most important goal in their classroom was meeting
academic standards. To plan for service learning, teachers need to begin prior to the first
day of school. Teachers should look at their academic standards and see what kind of
service may fit into those standards. This strategy may use the “backward design”
Figure 5.2. Proposed Elementary Planning Model
104
method of planning. This backward design focuses first on the outcomes of the lesson as
well as the evidence that the outcomes have been successful (Wiggins & McTighe,
2005). If teachers could first discuss the standards they need to meet and then match
them with the expected outcome of a service-learning project, then their daily lessons can
be developed with both in mind (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). For example, third grade
science standards include characteristics of soil, or the life cycle of a plant (Southeastern
State Standards, 2014). These standards would be taught well in a garden. Social Studies
standards (Southeastern State Standards, 2014) include Native Americans, and students
could plant flowers or crops that may have been used by Native Americans to survive in
the region. If a teacher can develop a few different ideas based on standards, then
students can choose which project they would like to focus on for the year.
Stiler (2009) used backwards planning to teach preservice teachers to design
service-learning lesson plans. In a Multicultural Education course, students were asked
to develop service-learning lesson plans over a four-week period. The lesson plans were
then assessed using a rubric. The study found that the lessons planned by elementary
education majors had more connection to character education standards rather than
content areas. It was also found that “lesson plans generally did not meet actual
community needs and were not constructed in ways that improved the quality of life of
those to be served” (p.116). Stiles (2009) concluded that even though backwards design
and service-learning are not convergent, addressing the overall goals and essential
questions is a necessary part of the process to develop lessons. Although this study has
limitations because the lessons were never actually taught in a classroom, it suggests that
“backwards design” may be useful in planning for a service-learning project. By putting
105
the goals at the center of the model, it reminds teachers and other partners to start with
the goals or outcomes prior to the start of the project.
The SLPPM includes five dimensions, research, relationships, roles and
responsibilities, representation, and resources. Each dimension is focused on a different
element that each partner brings to the planning process based on their goals and
intentions for the project. According to their research, one of the most important
dimensions of the SLPPM is relationships. Fostering communication and relationships
between all partners helps to ensure the success of the project. This dimension transfers
to an elementary program as well. In this study, it was evident through the data that
teachers and administration did not have congruent goals and expectations. By including
relationships as a part of the planning model it helps to keep all partners goals at the
forefront of the planning process.
The second dimension I included in my proposed model is roles and
responsibilities. This dimension is also part of the SLPPM and translates to the
elementary level. In the SLPPM, the “partners must consider their individual and
collective roles and contributions, as well as their responsibilities, in the planning,
decision-making, and action of the service-learning while balancing partner resources, the
scope of the service-learning function, and long-term relationships” (Sandmann, Kiely, &
Grenier, 2009, p.24). During this study, it was evident that the teachers did not focus on
what their own roles could be. The project may have been more successful if each
teacher took on a different role with their classes. For example, Alice’s strengths were in
reading and writing, her responsibilities for the project could have focused on those areas.
Her students could have done the research necessary for growing specific vegetables or
106
could have written letters or thank you cards to community members. Lydia’s role could
have been to take Alice’s research and put it into action by planting the vegetables in the
garden and using the research to maintain those crops. If Callie is focused on math, her
class could collect data and display it in the school. They could measure the growth of
the plants, weigh the harvest that is donated, and they could develop a budget for the
grant money left over after each growing season. These roles and responsibilities help
keep partners accountable and invested in the project because they fit each person’s
talents or specific goals. It is also important to note that service-learning may look
different in each classroom based on these roles and responsibilities.
Because this model is geared toward graduate level programs, all dimensions may
not directly translate to elementary level service-learning. For example, at the graduate
level, students are expected to conduct independent exploratory research to better
understand contextual factors that may have an effect on the program being designed or
implemented. At the elementary level, students may not be developmentally able to
conduct independent research or be able to independently understand the contextual
factors. This dimension of planning may be labeled as exploration. At the elementary
level, the partners must explore together throughout the project. Teachers,
administration, and community partners must foster dialogue and research in the
classroom to facilitate student exploration of the contextual factors influencing the
project. As students explore, themes will emerge as they discover their interests and the
next steps in the implementation of the process. As different aspects or needs of the
project emerge, the planning process will be influenced. The proposed elementary
planning model consists of an emergent curriculum dimension.
107
Emergent curriculum is a teaching method used in early childhood education
settings and is based on the Reggio Emilia approach (Rinaldi, 1993). This approach is
based on listening rather than speaking. In other words, the teacher needs to spend time
listening and observing students rather than giving them the information they need to
know (Rinaldi, 1993). Emergent curriculum is theoretically based on the work of
Vygotsky, Dewey, and other constructivists. It stresses the importance of participation
and experience in the acquisition of knowledge (Dewey, 1938; Vygotsky, 1978.) This is a
sharp contrast with the EDI method required by the school in this study. The EDI
method does not allow for student exploration or deeper understanding of the standards
taught. I would propose that this new model replace the EDI format when planning for a
service-learning project.
Rahm (2002), found that science learning opportunities emerged from youth
exploration in an inner-city garden program. Through the gardening program, 23 inner-
city youth ranging in age 11 to 14 were observed and interviewed as they participated in a
gardening program. Through their interactions with the environment, peers, and youth
leaders, and through active sense making, science content emerged. As the science
content emerged, youth leaders were able to provide further learning opportunities.
Although this study was not in a formal education setting, it illustrates the possibilities of
using emergent curriculum in service-learning.
When planning for an emergent curriculum, teachers must lay out the general
educational objectives, but they should not formulate specific goals for each activity in
advance. The teacher must study the children and provide occasions or opportunities for
learning to occur (Edwards, 1993). Rinaldi (1993) suggests,
108
“At the initiation of a project, the teachers should get together and discuss fully all
the possible ways that the project should be anticipated to evolve, considering the
likely ideas, hypotheses, and choices of children. By so doing, they prepare
themselves for all the subsequent stages of the project-even should the unexpected
occur” (p. 104).
It is then important for teachers to set up the learning environment for students to
explore and discover necessary components for the project. While students are working
in the pre-planned, focused environment, the teacher observes and collects data which are
used for planning the next steps in the exploration of the topic (Edwards,1993). In the
model suggested for elementary level planning, emerging content is the dimension
represented by the arrows connecting the other dimensions. This reminds teachers that
through the planning of other dimensions, content should emerge to further the service-
learning project. For example, through student exploration of the garden, students will
discover the necessary steps to further the success of their project. The students may
discover the need for a fence to keep other animals from eating the crops. Through this
exploration, the academic standards involving perimeter are emerging. This may lead to
the teacher planning a necessary experience for students to further explore perimeter on a
large scale. The arrows pointing in both directions shows that planning for service-
learning is not a concrete step by step process, but is cyclical, and as the project continues
the planning may take many different directions. This may also lead to classroom
differences in service-learning. Different students will explore different areas of the
garden and have different experiences leading to different emerging content.
109
Support from Administration and Organizations
This study found that one of the underlying factors that teachers felt inhibited
their success was that administration was more focused on priorities other than service-
learning. If administration makes service-learning projects a requirement and expects a
successful outcome, teachers need to feel supported in their efforts. Positive feedback,
assistance in the classroom, and participation in the project are all ways that
administration could support the teachers. Administration may also need to provide time
and space for teachers to plan cooperatively, or to reflect with one another about their
project.
Principal support influences how teachers feel about themselves and their work
(Littrell, Billingsley, & Cross, 1994). Studies find that when teachers feel supported by
their principal, they are less stressed, they are more productive and committed to their
job, and have a more positive attitude towards their job (Billingsley & Cross, 1992;
Dworkin, Haney, Dworkin & Telscow, 1990). By giving approval, providing
constructive feedback, and encouraging professional growth, administrative support is
important for teachers to feel that their work is valued and meaningful (Littrell,
Billingsley, & Cross, 1994).
This study also found that teachers needed more support from the organization it
was helping. Katie’s Krops is not an organization geared towards education settings, in
fact of their 100 gardens, most are at the homes of the grantees. Although the
organization is geared toward individual children in informal environments such as their
backyards, Katie’s Krops can be a successful service-learning opportunity in a formal
education setting. “The mission of Katie's Krops is to empower youth to start and
110
maintain vegetable gardens of all sizes and donate the harvest to help feed people in need,
as well as to assist and inspire others to do the same” (“Katie’s Krops,” n.d.) This mission
can be applied in elementary school classrooms and integrated with academic standards.
As previously mentioned, third grade standards in this southeastern state include earth
materials, informative writing and Native Americans. These standards lend themselves to
incorporating the Katie’s Krops mission well. When teaching earth materials, students
could collect soil samples from the garden to compare and contrast the properties and
then could test which soil sample would be better for growing plants. This can be used to
write an informative piece that could be sent to other Katie’s Krops schools to help other
students be successful in their garden. And finally, when teaching about Native
Americans, students could research the native plants of the region and plant them in their
garden to donate. If Katie’s Krops could help provide curriculum support or content
knowledge for gardening in the area, then teachers who receive the grants would be able
to be more effective in their projects. They could provide supplemental materials, or a
liaison for teachers to contact for support in their classrooms.
Professional Development
Finally, this study found that teachers did not have the pedagogical knowledge
necessary for using the service-learning methodology in their classroom. Teachers need
professional development to begin planning for and implementing a service-learning
project. Emergent curriculum could be an area in which to provide that professional
development. Teachers need to also learn how to incorporate goals of the project into
mandated standards, and without this professional development and allotted time for this
to occur, teachers may not be successful.
111
Professional development is necessary when new educational strategies are
necessary to implement curriculum (Sykes, 1996). Effective professional development is
an experience that increases teacher knowledge and changes their practice which leads to
improved student achievement (Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Birman, 2002). In this
study, Lucy, the principal acknowledged that she did not provide professional
development opportunities for her teachers to learn how to implement service-learning.
She also acknowledged that she did not communicate effectively her expectations or
goals for service-learning. This may have led to the negative perceptions of service-
learning that the teachers experienced. This is evidence for Desimone’s framework
(2009) for professional development. She suggests that coherence is important for
professional development to be successful in changing teacher practices. Professional
development must align with school, district, and state policies. Lucy knew that her
teachers would struggle with bringing service-learning together with academics because
district and state policies did not allow for it, but she did not provide support or
professional development to help. Lucy stated that she did not know where to find
professional development for her teachers, and in my search for professional
development literature focused on elementary service-learning, I also did not find any
academic journal articles. Desimone (2009) outlines that professional development must
also be content focused, involve active learning, include 20 hours of contact time, and
teachers who work in the same school or on the same team should learn together. When
planning a professional development experience based on service-learning, these factors
will need to be considered.
112
Limitations
The limitations of this study that were noted can be explained by the mitigating
circumstances that inhibited data collection, the sample of the study and length of study.
Mitigating Circumstances
This study was influenced greatly by circumstances the teachers could not control.
These circumstances included weather, construction, and my personal leave of absence
during the school year. In October of 2015, a major flood caused the school to be
canceled for a week, and the building of the garden to be postponed. Also, at the
beginning of 2016, a new roof was constructed on the school preventing access to the
garden space because of construction equipment. At the beginning of the school year in
August 2016, I, the researcher was on a personal leave of absence from the school. This
prohibited data from being collected, and could have influenced the implementation of
the project because I was not there to offer my suggestions in planning meetings or
interviews. Finally, in October 2016, Hurricane Matthew hit the southeastern states and
caused school to be closed again for a week. These circumstances could have influenced
the outcomes of this study.
Sample
The sample of the study only included one school, in one district, and one grade
level. This is a limitation because these teachers’ perceptions may have been influenced
by each other as they worked together on a team. Other teachers may have planned
differently or had different experiences throughout the school year as they implemented
their projects. The findings of this study may not allow for generalizability to all
teachers. However, because this study was only the first to gain insight to what teachers
113
need to be successful, the same outcomes may have been concluded from other
participants.
Length of Study
As previously mentioned, teachers in this study began to really reflect on their
planning strategies as the project progressed. By year two, teachers were coming up with
several ideas for the next school year to better implement their service-learning project.
By ending the research after two years, teachers may not have been able to fully establish
their service-learning projects.
Recommendations for Future Research
The findings of this study add to the current literature of service-learning,
however much more research is necessary to understand how teachers plan and
implement service learning. Future research needs to include more study sites and
teachers using different types of service-learning in the classrooms; it needs to include
teachers who have received professional development, and studies that follow teachers
longitudinally through their service-learning implementation.
It is recommended that future studies include several other school sites, in other
districts. The particular elementary school and district that was the site for this study may
have different policies or requirements than other elementary schools or school districts.
Researchers may find different results from teachers at different elementary schools in
different districts because of these different policies and expectations.
Future studies may yield different results when teachers are using different
service-learning projects or working with different organizations. Katie’s Krops focuses
on garden-based learning, but other organizations may not require teachers to have the
114
content knowledge to build, plant, and manage a garden space. Other organizations may
have a specific liaison that works directly with schools, and may allow teachers to have a
resource when lesson planning for their service-learning project.
Thirdly, different results may be found after teachers have received professional
development. Once teachers have gained the pedagogical knowledge how to implement
an effective service-learning project, teachers may have different perceptions and
planning strategies. It would be ideal for professional development to include emergent
curriculum strategies. A recent study (DeJarnette & Sudeck, 2016), published while
conducting my research, studied teacher candidates who were given instruction on how to
implement service-learning and then required to implement an interdisciplinary unit in
their elementary placement site that included service-learning. This study shows an
increase in teacher efficacy, as well as an increase in service-learning curriculum
development (DeJarnette & Sudeck, 2016). This study, unfortunately, does not include
references to the model or a description of the strategies used to teach the planning and
implementation of the service-learning. Future research should focus on a planning
model to help provide professional development for teachers who do not have the
pedagogical knowledge to implement service-learning. Several models and frameworks
of planning for service-learning were discussed previously. Future research should focus
on which model has the most significant impact on the planning of service-learning
projects. Could the university level framework be adapted to the elementary level? Is
backwards design the best method?
Finally, future studies should follow teachers longitudinally to see how their
projects progress and how they develop planning strategies for successful service-
115
learning projects. The participants in this study had limited understanding of service-
learning at the beginning of year one, and they learned from their experiences. As
teachers experience more, researchers may gain more insight to the planning of service-
learning projects. The more the teachers learn, the more successful they may feel and the
more confident they may become in their planning. This may lead to a more positive
perception than what was found during this study.
Final Remarks
This study focused on the perceptions of elementary school teachers as they
planned and implemented a service-learning project in their classrooms. The purpose
was to gain insight into teacher practices and strategies as they planned for such a project.
Before this study, there were very few studies that focused on service-learning in the
elementary classroom, and none were identified that focused on teacher planning for a
service-learning project. The study was designed on a constructivist framework that
service-learning curriculum would emerge through interactions between students,
teachers, Katie’s Krops, and the project.
The study provided insight on teachers’ perspectives and underlying factors that
influenced their planning and implementation of service-learning. The results of this
study support the existing literature that teachers plan using pacing guides, teacher
manuals, and other district provided resources, including the EDI format. The teachers’
planning strategies led to a lack of planning for the service-learning project and teachers’
negative perceptions of service-learning as a pedagogical strategy.
Through this study, the researcher could understand what the teachers valued as
important to implement in their classrooms, and what hindered their implementation of a
116
successful service-learning project. It was found that teachers did not have the
knowledge necessary to plan for an emergent type curriculum that service-learning may
be, nor did they have the content knowledge necessary to manage a garden. Teachers
also did not feel they had the time to implement the project with the other pressures and
obligations they had to accomplish. The limited knowledge of service-learning and the
process further indicates the necessity for professional development in elementary
schools. This study suggests that it is necessary for further research on the planning of
service-learning in elementary classrooms to determine which planning strategy has the
most significant impact on a service-learning project. Identifying such areas that need to
be examined can improve the implementation of service-learning and thus further
benefitting elementary students.
117
REFERENCES
A Whole School Transformation Process. (n.d.). Retrieved August 14, 2017, from
http://www.theleaderinme.org/what-is-the-leader-in-me/
Al-Makahleh, A. A. (2011). The Effect of Direct Instruction Strategy on Math
Achievement of Primary 4th and 5th Grade Students with Learning Difficulties.
International Education Studies, 4(4), 199-205.
Anderson, C. (2007). Perspectives on science learning. In Handbook of Research on
Science Education (pp. 3–30). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Anderson, M., & Swafford, M. (2011). Hydroponic garden promotes hands-on learning,
healthy eating. Techniques: Connecting Education & Careers, 52–55.
Appleton, K. k. (2002). Science Activities That Work: Perceptions of Primary School
Teachers. Research in Science Education, 32(3), 393-410.
Astin, A., Vogelgesang, L., Ikeda, E., Yee, J. (2000). How service-learning affects
students: An executive summary. Higher Education Research Institute, University
of California, Los Angeles.
Barnes, M. E. (2016). The Student as Teacher Educator in Service-Learning. Journal Of
Experiential Education, 39(3), 238-253.
Billig, S. (2000). Research on K-12 school-based service learning: The evidence builds.
Phi Delta Kappan, 81(9), 658-664.
Billig, S., Root, S., & Jesse, D. (2005). The relationship between quality indicators of
service-learning and student outcomes: Testing the professional wisdom. In S.
118
Root, J. Callahan, & S.H. Billig (Eds.), Advances in service learning research:
Vol. 5 (pp. 97-115). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Billingley, B. & Cross, L. (1992). Predictors of commitment, job satisfaction, and intent
to stay in teaching: A comparison of general and special educators. The Journal of
Special Education, 25, 453-471.
Blair, D. (2009). The child in the garden: An evaluative review of the benefits of school
gardening. Journal of Environmental Education, 40(2), 15–38.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson A & B.
Bowker, R., & Tearle, P. (2007). Gardening as a learning environment: A study of
children’s perceptions and understanding of school gardens as a part of an
international project. Learning Environments Research, 10, 83–100.
Brown, D. (1988). Twelve Middle-School Teachers' Planning. The Elementary School
Journal, 89(1), 69-87. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/stable/1001913
Canaris, I. (1995). Growing foods for growing minds: Integrating gardening and nutrition
education into the total curriculum. Children’s Environments, 12(2), 264–270.
Celio, C., Durlak, J., &Dymnicki, A. (2011). A Meta-Analysis of the impact of service
learning on students. Journal of Experiential Education, 34(2), 164–181.
Chien, C. (2017). Undergraduates’ implementations of learning stations as their service-
learning among elementary school students. Education 3-13, 45(2), 209-226.
119
Choi, J.-I., & Hannafin, M. (1995). Situated cognition and learning environments: Roles,
structures, and implications for design. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 43(2), 53–69.
Cone, N. (2009). Preservice Elementary Teachers' Self-Efficacy Beliefs about Equitable
Science Teaching: Does Service Learning Make a Difference? Journal of
Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 25-34.
Creswell, J. & Miller, G. (1997). Research methodologies and the doctoral process. New
Directions for Higher Education, 99, 33-46.
Davis, D. (2013). Cognitive and affective outcomes of short-term service-learning
experiences: An exploratory study. International Journal for the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning, 7(2), 1-15.
DeJarnette, N. K., & Sudeck, M. (2016). Advocating for a cause: Civic engagement in
the K-6 classroom. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 7(1), 140-162.
Desimone, L. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development:
Toward better conceptualization and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3),
181-199.
Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C, Garet, M., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. (2002). Effects of
professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year
longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York, NY: Collier Books
Drake Dones, T. (1999). The effects of a service learning program on sense of community
and perceptions of control in elementary school students. (Doctoral dissertation,
120
Indiana University). Received from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
(9942844).
Dworkin, A., Haney, C., Dworkin, R., & Telschow, R. (1990). Stress and illness behavior
among urban public-school teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly,
26(1), 60-72.
Edwards, C. (1993). Partner, nurturer, and guide: The roles of the reggio teacher in
action. In The Hundred Languages of Children (3rd ed., pp. 101-111). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Egeler, D. (1993). Factors that influence the instructional planning of teachers.
Educational Planning, 9(3), 19-37.
Eppler, M. A., Ironsmith, M., Dingle, S. H., & Errickson, M. A. (2011). Benefits of
Service-Learning for Freshmen College Students and Elementary School
Children. Journal of The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(4), 102-115.
Eyler, J. (2000). What do we most need to know about the impact of service-learning on
student learning? Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7, 11-17.
Eyler, J. (2002). Reflection: Linking service and learning – linking students and
communities. Journal of Social Issues. 58(3), 517-534.
Eyler, J. and Giles, D.E. (1999). Where's the learning in service-learning? (pp. 3-5). San
Francisco: Bass.
Gardner, E. & Baron, C. (1999). Attitudinal and academic effects of service-learning.
Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 18(1-2), 97-109.
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Pub
121
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson Education.
Graham, H., Beall, D., Lussier, M., McLaughlin, P., & Ziden-Cherr, S. (2005). Use of
school gardens in academic instruction. Journal of Nutrition Education and
Behavior, 37, 147–151.
Guba, E. (1981) Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries,
Educational Communication and Technology Journal 29, 75–91.
Hixson, N., Stohr, A.D., & Hammer, P.C. (2013). Instructional planning: A review of
existing research and educator practice during the 2012-2013 school year.
Charleston, WV: West Virginia Department of Education, Division of Teaching
and Learning, Office of Research.
Hurd, C. (2006). Is service-learning effective? A look at current research.
Kagan, D. 1., & Tippins, D. J. (1992). The evolution of functional lesson plans among
twelve elementary and secondary student teachers. Elementary School Journal,
92477-489.
Kielsmeier, J. (2003). A time to serve, a time to learn: New roles for youth. Generator,
21 (3), 5-14.
Killen, M. & Turiel, E. (1998). Adolescents’ and young adults’ evaluations of heloing
and sacrificing for others. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8(3),355-375.
Kinder. D., Kubina, R., & Marchand-Martella, N. (2005). Special education and direct
instruction: An effective combination. Journal of Direct Instruction, 5(1), 1-36.
Koeller, S., & Thompson, E. (1980). Another look at lesson planning. Educational
Leadership, (May), 673–675.
122
Kohlstedt, S. (2008). “A better crop of boys and girls”: The school gardening movement,
1890-1920. History of Education Quarterly, 48(1), 58–93.
Lakin, R. & Mahoney, A. (2006). Empowering youth to change their world: Identifying
key components of a community service program to promote positive
development. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 513-531.
Libman, K. (2007). Growing youth growing food: How vegetable gardening influences
young people’s food consciousness and eating habits. Applied Environmental
Education & Communication, 6(1), 87–95.
Littrell, P. C., Billingsley, B. S., & Cross, L. H. (1994). The effects of principal support
on special and general educators' stress, job satisfaction, school commitment,
health, and intent to stay in teaching. Remedial & Special Education, 15297-310.
Markus, G., Howard, J. & King, D. (1993). Integrating community service and classroom
instruction enhances learning: Results from an experiment. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(4), 410-419.
McArthur, J. (2010). Gardening with youth as means of developing science, work and
life skills. Children, Youth and Environments, 20(1), 301–317.
McCutchen, D., Abbott, R., Green, L. Beretvas, S., Cox, S., Potter, N., Quiroga, T., &
Gray, A. (2002). Beginning literacy: Links among teacher knowledge, teacher
practice, and student learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(1), 68-86.
McCutcheon, G. (1980). How do elementary school teachers plan? The nature of
planning and influences on it. The Elementary School Journal, 81(1), 4–23.
McCutcheon, G. (1981). Elementary school teachers’ planning for social studies and
other subjects. Theory and Research in Social Education, 9(1), 45-66
123
McKenna, M. & Rizzo, E. (1999). Student perceptions of the “learning” in service-
learning courses. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 18(1-
2), 111-123.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Morgan, W. & Streb, M. (2001). Building citizenship: How student voice in service-
learning develops civic values. Social Science Quarterly, 82(1), 155-169.
Neustadter, A., Morris, J., & Zidenberg-Cherr, S. (2001). First-grade gardeners more
likely to taste vegetables. California Agriculture, 55(1), 43–46.
Ozer, E. (2007). The effects of school gardens on students and schools:
Conceptualization and considerations for maximizing healthy development.
Health Education & Behavior, 34, 846–863.
Parmer, S., Salisbury-Glennon, J., Shannon, D., & Struempler, B. (2009). School
gardens: An experiential learning approach for nutrition education program to
increase fruit and vegetable knowledge, preference, and consumption among
second-grade students. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 41(3), 212–
217.
Pidgeon, N. (2002). Grounded theory: Theoretical background. In Handbook of
qualitative research methods for psychology and the social sciences (pp. 75-85).
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Pidgeon, N. and Henwood, K. (2002). Grounded theory: Practical implementation. In
Handbook of qualitative research methods for psychology and the social sciences
(pp. 86-101). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
124
Rahm, J. (2002). Emergent Learning opportunities in an inner-city youth gardening
program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(2), 164–184.
Reiser, R. A. (1994). Examining the planning practices of teachers: Reflections on three
years of research. Educational Technology, 34(3), 11–16.
Rinaldi, C. (1993). The emergent curriculum and social constructivisim. In The Hundred
Languages of Children (3rd ed., pp. 101-111). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing
Corporation.
Scott, K. & Graham, J. (2015). Service learning: Implications for empathy and
community engagement in elementary school children. Journal of Experiential
Education, 38(4), 354-372.
Sobel, D. (2001). You learn what you eat: Cognition meets nutrition in Berkeley schools.
Orion Afield, 5(3), 10–13.
Soslau, E. & Yost, D. (2007). Urban service-learning: An authentic teaching strategy to
deliver a standards-driven curriculum. Journal of Experiential Education, 30(1),
36-53.
Spear-Swerling, L. S., & Zibulsky, J. j. (2014). Making time for literacy: teacher
knowledge and time allocation in instructional planning. Reading & Writing,
27(8), 1353-1378.
Steinke, P. & Buresh, S. (2002). Cognitive outcomes of service-learning: Reviewing the
past and glimpsing the future. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning,
8(2), 5-14.
125
Stiler, G. (2009). Planning to serve: Using backwards planning to design service-learning
lesson plans in the preservice curriculum. Journal on Excellence in College
Teaching, 20(2), 105-123.
Sykes, G. (1996). Reform of and as professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 77464-
467
The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. (n.d.). Retrieved August 14, 2017, from
https://www.franklincovey.com/Solutions/Leadership/7-habits-signature.html
Tillema, H.H. (2009) Assessment for learning to teach: Appraisal of practice teaching
lessons by mentors, supervisors, and student teachers. Journal of Teacher
Education, 60, 155–167.
Tinkler, B., Hannah, C. L., Tinkler, A., & Miller, E. (2015). The Impact of a Social
Justice Service-Learning Field Experience in a Social Foundations Course.
Critical Questions In Education, 6(1), 16-29.
Tyler,R. (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wall, C. G. (2017). Bridging Understanding between Preservice Teachers and Diverse
Students through Service-Learning. Teaching Education, 28(2), 178-193.
Walsham, G. What is Interpretive Research? [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from
www.uio.no/.../ifi/INF5740/h04/undervisningsmateriale/Lecture_1.ppt
Wang, J., Greathouse, B. & Falcinella, V. M. (1997). An empirical assessment of self-
esteem enhancement in a CHALLENGE service-learning program. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
126
Association, Chicago, IL. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 410
485).
Welcome to Katie’s Krops. (n.d.) Retrieved October 21, 2017, from
http://www.katieskrops.com/
Weiss, R.S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative
interviewing. New York, NY: Free Press.
Weisskirch, R. (2003). Analyzing student journals in a service-learning course. Academic
Exchange Quarterly, 7(2), 141-145.
Whitley, M. & Walsh, D. (2014). A framework for the design and implementation of
service-learning courses. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance,
85(4), 34-39.
Wien, C. A. (2008). Toward a "Good-Enough" Theory of Emergent Curriculum. In
Emergent Curriculum in the Primary Classroom (pp. 144-161). New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Williams, D., & Dixon, P. S. (2013). Impact of garden-based learning on academic
outcomes in schools: Synthesis of research between 1990 and 2010. Review of
Educational Research, 83(2), 211–235.
Wilson, R., Bradbury, L., & McGlasson. (2015). Integrating Service-Learning Pedagogy
for Preservice Elementary Teachers' Science Identity Development. Journal of
Science Teacher Education. 26(3), 319-340.
Yin, R. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications
127
Yinger, R. (1980). A Study of Teacher Planning. The Elementary School Journal, 80(3),
107-127. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/stable/1001636
Young, A. C., Reiser, R. A., & Dick, W. (1998). Do superior teachers employ systematic
instructional planning procedures? A descriptive study. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 46(2), 65–78.
Zahorik, J. A. (1976). Task for curriculum research. Educational Leadership, 33487-489
128
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONS FOR KATIE’S KROPS APPLICANTS
Please answer all the following questions (1-15) completely on a separate sheet of paper.
For each question, each answer should not be longer than 150 words. Please type and
number each of your answers.
Helpful hints: one-word answers do not allow us to get to know you. Take time to answer
the questions and help us get to know you as a person. Explain why you would be a great
Katie's Krops Grower.
1.) Why do you want to start a vegetable garden to feed people in need?
2.) How would your community benefit from Katie's Krops Garden?
3.) Where will you plant your garden? This can be at your home, your school, church,
community center, etc. Please feel free to include a photo of where you would like
to plant your garden. If you are planning on growing your garden at a school,
community center, church, or another organization you must include a letter from
a representative of the organization on their letterhead granting you permission to
start the garden on their property. If the garden is to be located at a school please
also have the letter note that you will have access to the property during the summer.
4.) What is the size of the garden you wish to start? Will it be: in the ground, in raised
beds, or in planters/pots?
5.) If the garden you want to start is not located at your home, how far is the proposed
garden from your home? Do you have regular transportation to that location?
6.) Is there a water source for the garden (a place that you are able to attach a hose to
or an existing in ground sprinkler system)?
7.) Who will help start and maintain your garden? List the volunteers and ages of the
volunteers. Your volunteers must include a minimum of two adults. Please include
contact e-mails or phone numbers for adult volunteers.
8.) Where will you donate your harvest? You may list several organizations/places
along with addresses, phone numbers, and websites (if possible). If you wish to
make direct donations to families in need, please explain how you will find families
to donate to. (Note: For food bank donations, some food banks charge families in
need for fresh produce. Please check with your food bank on their policies. If your
food bank does charge recipients for fresh produce, please select a different
organization to donate to for the purposes of this application.)
9.) Do you have any experience gardening (it is not required)? If you answered yes,
please explain.
129
10.) What do you feel are your personal strengths?
11.) What extracurricular activities are you currently involved in throughout the year?
12.) Is there anything else you would like to share with us about yourself?
13.) Do you have regular access to a computer for reporting?
14.) Do you plan on growing your garden for more than one year? If so for how long?
15.) How did you hear about Katie’s Krops?
130
APPENDIX B
PARTICIPANT LETTER
August 24, 2015
Dear Teachers,
When I am not teaching here at SES, I am also a grad student. I am currently
working on my doctorate in Teaching and Learning at the University of South Carolina. I
am interested in working with a few teachers to conduct research for my dissertation. I
am looking for teachers that will be using the service learning in their classroom. I hope
to gather data on the instructional planning and strategies that are used in the project and
personal reflections throughout the year. The ultimate goal of this research is to develop
a planning model for teachers using service learning in their classrooms.
The research project is based on observations, written reflections and interviews.
Interviews will be conducted four to five times throughout the project, I will come to
your classroom and they will last no longer than one hour. I would also need to observe
your teaching of the service learning project at least two times, these times will be
arranged with you and we will work around your schedule. Participation will be
voluntary, but you will need to participate in all parts of the process if you choose to
accept. I will be the only one with access to the raw data. Research data will be
collected between September 2015 and April 2017. To ensure that data collected cannot
be linked back to participants, names and identifiable information will not be included in
the final dissertation. Fifty-dollar compensation will be provided once you finish all the
expectations for the project.
If you are interested in helping, my contact information is below. I really look
forward to being a part of your service learning project and working with you all.
Sincerely,
Cory Susanne Miller
203-400-2418
131
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL – INITIAL INTERVIEW
Project: Service-Learning in the classroom
Date of Interview:
Time:
Participant:
Grade Level:
Teaching Experience:
Location:
Instructions for Interviewer:
• Welcome participant
• Explain and discuss informed consent form - Participant signature
• Introduce study/state purpose:
The purpose of this study is to explore and gain insight in to how elementary school
teachers use service learning and to examine underlying factors that shape and influence
how teachers plan for service learning projects. I am not looking for specific answers, I
just want to read your stories and gain insights into your perceptions about your teaching
practice. Let's explore your background and the experiences that have influenced you to
begin this project.
Focus Question: How do you plan for instruction daily? What is your understanding of
Service-Learning? How will you incorporate SL into your classroom?
How do you plan for daily instruction?
What factors contribute to your instructional planning?
How do student ideas/questions contribute to your planning?
How do students learn best? How do you know if your students are learning?
How do you know when to move on to new content?
Have you previously taught content using a garden? If so, how did you plan for that unit?
Tell me about your understanding and experience with Service Learning?
132
What is your goal for this project? For the students, school, and yourself.
What do you envision SL looking like in your classroom?
How did you prepare for this project?
How do you think your students will be impacted by this project?
What obstacles and/or advantages if any, do you foresee with this project?
Reflections/Notes: Thank individual for participating in the interview. Assure him or her
of confidentiality of responses and additional interviews.
133
APPENDIX D
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL 2-4
Project: Service-Learning in the classroom
Date of Interview:
Time:
Participant:
Grade Level:
Teaching Experience:
Location:
Instructions for Interviewer: The focus of this interview is to explore your present-day
classroom experiences in terms of your garden SL project.
Focus Question: What impacts has the garden project had on your understanding of SL
and instructional planning?
(Probe) Tell me how your project is going.
(Probe) What does SL look like in your classroom?
(Probe) How are you preparing for day to day teaching, in terms of the project?
(Probe) How are you able to use the project to meet state standards?
(Probe) What role do the students play in planning and implementing the project?
(Probe) What other resources are you using to implement the project?
(Probe) How do you perceive the link between your understanding of SL and putting it
into practice in the classroom?
(Additional questions may be asked after review of documents to clarify/ justify
interpretation)
Reflections/Notes
Thank individual for participating in the interview. Assure him or her of confidentiality
of responses and additional interviews.
134
APPENDIX E
TIMELINE OF STUDY
PROJECT TIMELINE
PROJECT STARTINITIAL INTERVIEWS
FIRST PLANNING MEETING
FLOOD
NEW ROOF CONSTRUCTION
GARDEN BUILT END OF FIRST YEAR
RESEARCHER ON LEAVE
HURRICANE MATTHEW
GARDEN REBUILD
PROJECT END
135
APPENDIX F
PLANNING MEETING AGENDA TEMPLATE
Grade Level Team Agenda
Date:
Attendees
Minutes take by:
Meeting Norms: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
TEAM Mission Statement:
Wins:
Topic Person Responsible
Action/Plan
Last Thursday’s Reflection: This Thursday’s Plan:
Parking Lot:
136
APPENDIX G
PLANNING MEETING AGENDA 12/6/16
Grade Level Team Agenda
Date: 12-6-16 **Teachers names have been removed
Attendees
Williams Jeffries Jacobson Chitwood
Miller
Minutes take by: April Jeffries
Meeting Norms: 1. Positive Attitudes 2. Sharing is the purpose 3. Come prepared with ideas 4. Be out by 4:00 (if possible)
TEAM Mission Statement: We strive to collaborate daily and weekly on our students, goals, achievements, and teaching strategies to create leaders and lifelong learners.
Wins: Chitwood’s Behavior Plan student has met his points goal for two days in a row. Students are getting much better at restating for TDA’s. Miller’s concerning students has made great gains in testing and classroom activities.
Concerns for Administration: More of a question—Any other areas that you would like for students to mulch? We have completed the garden and put it around that end of the building where students will be using the water hose—but not sure where else you would like it.
Topic Person Responsible
Action/Plan
Standards For the week after Thanksgiving
Math-Reviewing addition and subtraction using word problems Capacity will be in Jan. Reading—Holiday stories—compare and contrast, sequencing,
137
ask and answer questions—RACER questions—How did the character change from the beginning of the story to the end? (Grinch) Word study—holiday words Writing Workshop—Writing Process—Opinions/Explanatory Science—Animal habitats and adaptations/Food Chains Social Studies—American Revolution in Jan.
Important dates to remember
Leadership Notebook Chats—Wednesday, Dec. 7 at 9:00am 2nd grade will be coming to us—Miller will send 2-3 to each 3rd grade room. Most 2nd grade classes have about 20 students. PTA/Holiday performance—Thursday, Dec. 8—6 pm Williams/Jacobson signed up to represent 3rd grade IG meeting during planning—Thursday, Dec. 8—Any new students we need to discuss? Chitwood has one for behavior. School Holiday performance—Friday, Dec. 9 1:30
Upcoming Events
Teacher Volunteers to lead the project
Any new details? Field Trip to Aquarium—Feb. 16th. About $12.00 a student. Permission letters will be sent home on Jan. 25th and due Thursday, Feb. 9 (one week before the trip)
138
Service Learning Project—Miller—What’s next? Onions and kale are planted. Soil will be coming in Wednesday morning. Jeffries will contact her business partner to see about ordering more boxes. We still need to spread and move the mulch. Williams will take her class to do that on Wed. morning. We also need to have the kids research other places that would take food donations—Home for Hope? Churches? Need for students to create a script as if they would be calling the organization.
Last Thursday’s Reflection: We generated a variety of options for Reading lessons centered on holiday stories. We created RACER TDA questions to go with the story options.
This Thursday’s Plan: IG meetings—New student from Chitwood for behavior. Next Thursday’s meeting we will be analyzing our latest DRA’s to create focus areas for DI when we return in Jan.
139
APPENDIX H
PLANNING MEETING AGENDA 4/18/17
Grade Level Team Agenda
Date: 4-18-17 **Names of teachers have been removed
Attendees
Williams Jeffries Jacobson Chitwood
Miller
Minutes take by: April Jeffries
Meeting Norms: 1. Positive Attitudes
2. Sharing is the purpose
3. Come prepared with ideas
4. Be out by 4:00 (if possible)
TEAM Mission Statement: We strive to collaborate daily and weekly on our students, goals, achievements, and teaching strategies to create leaders and lifelong learners.
Wins: Spring Break was relaxing and rejuvenated us for the testing season. All students CAN succeed.
Concerns for Administration:
Topic Person Responsible
Action/Plan
Standards Math-Standards Review Reading—Standards Review—Basal Story—Pop’s Bridge Word study—Homophones with the stem trans- Writing- Storytree Theatre—writing plays/skits to go along with Civil War unit and standards Science—Electricity and magnetism
140
Social Studies—Reconstruction and the 20th Century
Service Learning Chat
Need more soil—Meeting at Home Depot at 11:00am to get more soil. Jeffries will check about getting a key to the gate so we can drive in and drop it off. Chitwood will harvest the lettuce, wash it and weigh it so we can tell how much we will donate
Artist in Residence
Schedule: Does this still work for you? I know Williams will need to change one day due to Special Area changes. 7:40-8:40 3E Miller (switch with Williams on Tuesday at 8:40) 8:40-9:40 3A Williams (switch with Miller on Tuesday at 7:40) 9:40-10:40 3B Jeffries 11:30-12:30 3C Jacobson 12:30-1:30 3D Chitwood
April Snack and Activity
Snack will be on Wednesday, April 19 at the faculty meeting Strawberry shortcakes with whip cream and each bring a 2 liter drink We have generic bowls, small plates, forks, napkins, small Styrofoam cups—make sure to bring a serving spoon for your strawberry stuff. Set up about 1:45 in Library.
141
Faculty activity—checking on places for Happy Hour on Friday, April 28
Evening Expectations coming up
Thursday, April 20th 6:00 pm SHS auditorium—STAR Performer District Celebration—Jeffries and Williams Thursday, April 27th 6:00 pm PTA meeting and Spring Concert—Jacobson and Chitwood
Last Thursday’s Reflection:
This Thursday’s Plan: Time will be spent working on the GATE spread sheet. Be thinking about ideas for Survivor.
Parking Lot:
142
APPENDIX I
PLANNING MEETING AGENDA 5/9/17
Grade Level Team Agenda
Date: 5-9-17 **Teacher names have been removed
Attendees
Williams Jeffries Jacobson Chitwood
Miller (absent)
Minutes take by: April Jeffries
Meeting Norms: 1. Positive Attitudes
2. Sharing is the purpose
3. Come prepared with ideas
4. Be out by 4:00 (if possible)
TEAM Mission Statement: We strive to collaborate daily and weekly on our students, goals, achievements, and teaching strategies to create leaders and lifelong learners.
Wins: Students are doing a fantastic job and excited about the Fashion Show Writing project.
Concerns for Administration:
Topic Person Responsible
Action/Plan
Standards Math-multiplication and division practice Reading—Novel Study—Standards Review—Jake Drake Know-it-All (two weeks of Reading—11 chapters) Word study—Descriptive words—Synonyms
143
Writing- Descriptive writing—focus on Word Choice—Fashion Show final copy and rehearsal Science—Magnetism Social Studies—Turn of the 20th Century
Science Inventory
We met in the Science Trailer and inventoried Jeffries and Jacobson’s kits. Then went inside and did Chitwood and Williams. Only need Millers and then Jeffries will input the information and send it electronically to the district.
Service Learning
What needs to be done? Sprinkle flower seeds and see what blooms--Williams Watering and weeding schedule— Jeffries this week—weed twice, water everyday Next week? Williams
Evening Expectations coming up
Thursday, May 18—Retirees reception at SHS 6pm Jacobson and Miller signed up to represent 3rd grade Thursday, May 18—afterschool—everyone to help set up for the Fashion Show—set up a time with library to go in on Friday to show the kids Tuesday, May 23—Talent Show at SES 6pm Chitwood and Miller signed up to represent 3rd grade
Fashion Show
Need to switch because of change in Special Area
See New Time Schedule Monday, May 22—Schedule 7:45-9:15 Miller and Chitwood 9:30-10:30 Jacobson 11:15-12:15 Williams 12:30-1:30 Jeffries
144
Last Thursday’s Reflection: Did not meet due to not having a common planning time because of the Special Area schedule being changed due to testing.
This Thursday’s Plan: We will not meet as a team because we do not have a common planning time on Thursday due to change in Special Area times because of 5th grade testing.
Parking Lot: